AGENDA OF THE UT AH ST ATE BUILDING BOARD
Wednesday, December 4, 2019 Utah State Capitol Building 350 North State Street Room 250 Salt Lake City, Utah 9:00 am
(Action) i. Approval of Minutes of: September 4, 20'l9 Building Board Meeting October 2, 2019 Capital Development Hearing October 3, 2019 Business Meeting and Prioritization...... Tab I
(Information) II. Approval of 2020 Building Board Meeting Schedule Tab 2
(Action) Ill. Non-State Funded Capital Development Hearing Tab 3
Utah State Building Board Non-State Funded Capital Development Hearing Utah State Capitol Room 250 Wednesday, December4, 2019 ProjectiRequiriig Board Recommendation Start Minutes Agency/Institution Project Presenter 9:10AM 10 I Universityof Uah 102 Tower Building Purchase Jonathan Bates 9:20 AM 10 2 Universityof Uah Health Sciences Campus Office Space Robin Burr 9:30 AM 10 3 University of Uah Health Sciences Garage and Roadwaylmprover4ents Robin Burr 9:40 AM 10 4 Universityof Uah Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addnion Robin Burr. 9:50 AM 10 5 Utah State University Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab Dave Cowley 10:CX)AM 10 6 Salt Lake CommunityCollege Westpoint Building Jeffrey West Projects Requiring Board Approval 10:10AM 10 7 Universityof Uah Dumke Gymnastics Center Renovation andAddition Robin Burr 10:20AM 10 8 University of Uah NewTheaterat Einar Neilsen Fieldhouse Robin Burr FrankYoungand 10:30AM 10 9 Utah Valley University NewAdvancement and Alumni Building Scott Cooksey
(Information) IV. FutureAgendaltems
Announcement-Retirement Open House for Jeff Reddoor - After the Board Meeting, I "l :OO am to "l :OO pm. State Office Building Auditorium.
Notice of Special Accommodation Durinq Public Meetinqs - In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Cee Cee Niederhauser 538-3261 (TDD 538-3696) at least three days prior to the meeting. This information and all other Utah State Building Board information is available on our web site at: https://das.utali.gov/building-board/ Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt lke City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: Approval of Minutes
Attached for your review and approval are the minutes from the:
September 4, 2019 Building Board Meeting October 2, 2019 Capital Development Hearing October 3, 2019 Business Meeting and Prioritization
JR: cn Attachment Utah State Building Board
MEETING
September 4, 2019
MINUTES
Members in Attendance: Members Absent: Joe Burgess, Chair William French Jeff Reddoor, Director Mike Kelley, Assistant Attorney General Lisa Barrager Wendell Morse Kevin VanTassell Richard Fairbanks Stan Plewe Miranda Jones Cox
Guests in Attendance: Darrell Hunting Division of Facilities Construction and Management Jim Russell Division of Facilities Construction and Management Cee Cee Niederhauser Division of Facilities Construction and Management Matt Boyer Division of Facilities Construction and Management Lee Fairbourn Division of Facilities Construction and Management Jake Njord Division of Facilities Construction and Management Sid Pawar AJC Architects Chad Campbell Bridgerland Technical College Ben Berrett Utah State University Jonathan Hickerson EDA Architects Branden Clark Utah National Guard Vince Wolff Utah National Guard Dan Lundergan U of U Hospitals Robin Burr University of Utah Joseph Demma Mountainland Technical College Heather Knighton MHTN Architects Erin West Spectrum Engineers Brian Wikle Legislative Fiscal Analyst Julee Attig Reaveley Engineers Aimee McKinlay Envision Engineering Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 Page 2
Adam Young Spectrum Engineers Don Brinkerhoff Human Services Tiger Funk Southern Utah University Lori Haglund VBFA Architects Sid Pawar AJC Architects
On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, the Utah State Buiiding Board held a regularly scheduled meeting in Room 250 of the State Capitol. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M.
Q APPROVALOFMINUTESFROMTHEJULY'l0,2019BOARDMEETING Chair Burgess asked for comments or corrections to the minutes from the July 10th Building Board Meeting. None were brought forward.
MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to approve the minutes from the July 10, 2019 Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Kevin Van Tassell and passed unanimously.
u FIVEYEARNOTICEOFREVIEWANDSTATEMENTOFCONTINUATION FOR RULE R23-26, DiSPUTE RESOLUTiON Assistant Attorney General, Mike Kelley explained the purpose for the Five year review. There has been no reason to change the rule which is referred to in DFCM's contracts and general conditions. He recommends the board approve R23-26 so that it can continue on the books.
MOTION: Richard Fairbanks moved to approve the Five Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation for Rule R23-26, Dispute Resolution. The motion was seconded by Kevin Van Tassell and passed unanimously.
u REPEAL OF R23-33 RULES FOR THE PRIORITIZATION AND SCORING OF CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENTS BY THE UT AH ST ATE BUILDING BOARD Assistant Attorney General, Mike Kelley explained this rule needs to be repealed based upon the recent changes to state statute which moves the prioritization and scoring process for capital improvements responsibility from the State Building Board to DFCM. Since a large part of this rule is incorporated into the statute, the rule is no longer needed. Mr. Kelley requested the Board repeal Rule R23-33.
MOTION: Lisa Barrager moved to repeal R23-33 Rules for the Prioritization and Scoring of Capital Improvements by the Utah State Building Board. The motion was seconded by Kevin Van Tassell and passed unanimously. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September4, 2019 Page 3
[3 REQUESTFORAPPROVALFORTHEUNIVERSITYOFUTAHHOSPITAL6"' FLOOR RENOVATION (NON-ST ATE FUNDED) Dan Lundergan, Chief Operations Officer for University of Utah Health - Hospitals and Clinics, and Robin Burr from the University or Utah explained this project has been approved by the Board of Trustees and outlined in their original budget earlier last year. The university would like to renovate the Hospital 6'h floor which will require moving of the orthopaedic and trauma surgical sub-specialty unit to the ACC; freeing up the vacated unit for renovation. The cost of $19,111,380 will include equipment, soft costs and construction which will address code, ADA, functionality and provide an accommodating space for their patients. There was discussion concerning what constituted actual soft costs, the relevancy of the 1981 design and the adjustment required for new equipment and technology. The project will be funded by clinical revenues and no state O&M will be request.
MOTION: Richard Fairbanks moved to approve the University of Utah Hospital 6'h Floor Renovation. The motion was seconded by Stan Plewe and passed unanimously
€ REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SOUTH JORDAN HEALTH CENTER RENOV ATION (NON-ST ATE FUNDED) Dan Lundergan explained this building was originally constructed in 2012 and is an extension of the medical ambulatory strategy. The project does not expand the building but reconfigures the existing space at the South Jordan Health Center and addresses the increase clinical demand for this area. The project will be constructed in two phases creating 35-40 exam rooms. In addition, it will provide 24,364 sr of clinical space and faculty workspace with Urgent Care relocated with the expanded laboratory on level one. The childcare capacity will be doubled and the facility will maximize their site of service designation for orthopaedic and physical medicine and rehabilitation. The cost of $10,992,089 is for equipment, construction and soft costs. There was discussion concerning the University's approval process before a project moves forward for Building Board consideration. Robin Burr addressed how the university budgets and manages costs. This project will be funded by clinical revenues and no state O&M will be request.
MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to approve the University of Utah South Jordan Health Center Renovation. The motion was seconded by Lisa Barrager and passed unanimously.
Richard Fairbanks commended the University of Utah Health Care System and expressed appreciation for the excellence they bring to the community.
[] ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT FOR DFCM DFCM Assistant Director, Darrell Hunting delivered the administrative report. The report covers the period of June 15, 2019 - August 15, 2019. There are no significant updates to the lease report. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 Page 4
Lease Report: No items to report this period.
Professional Services Agreements, 69 Agreements Issued The Professional Services Agreements awarded during this period consist of: 49 Design Agreements, 20 Planning/Study/Other Agreements. No significant items
Construction Contracts, 51 Contracts Issued The Construction Contracts awarded during this period consist of: 3 New Spaces, 22 Remodeling Contracts, 3 Paving/Roofing Contracts, and 23 0ther No significant items
Report of Contingency Reserve Fund Decreases, Capital Development Capital Development started period with $5,574,034, had no increases and five decreases for $510,504, and ending with a balance of $5,063,530.
Decreases, Capital Development Capital Development started period with $5,574,034, had no increases and five decreases for $510,504, and ending with a balance of $5,063,530.
Report of Project Reserve Fund Activity Development Project Reserve Fund had one increase for $242,090 and ending with a balance of $3,854,511. The Improvement Project Reserve Fund started with a balance of $6,356,223, had multiple transfers in of $1069,029 and multiple transfers from the fund of $413,888, and ending with a balance of $7,011,364. Increases The increases reflect savings on projects that were transferred to Project Reserve per statute.
Decreases The decreases are to award construction contracts that were over budget.
Jeff Reddoor asked about the change order percentage for development projects and if this was in the report. Mr. Hunting indicated where this was found. There was discussion as to whether the report contained adequate information For the Board or whether problems should be flagged so they can be addressed at the meeting. Chair Burgess suggested this be a discussion for the next meeting. Jim Russell suggested that DFCM provide more meaningful information such as the identification of projects that went above the allocation. Mr. Russell further explained that their contingency continues to grow because DFCM manages it well. Eventually these funds are tapped by the Legislature and then the funds starts building again. Mr. Russell noted that the national standard for project change orders runs in the 6-12% range. DFCM is 4.5% on a regular basis which is well below the national standard.
Jeff Reddoor made a few announcements: The deadline for Operation and Maintenance reporting into the Risk Connect System is September 30'h. Jake Njord will be taking pictures of two new Board members after the meeting. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 Page 5
Chair Burgess announced the Board would take a short break and reconvene in State Office Building 4112.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Lisa Barrager moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Stan Plewe and passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:51 A.M.
BUSINESS MEETING
Guests in Attendance: Tyler Brinkerhoff UTECH Jared Haines UTECH Don Brinkerhoff Human Services Vince Woiff Utah National Guard Brandon Clark Utah National Guard Heather Knighton MHTN Architects Lori Haglund VBFA Architects Julee Attig Reaveley Engineers Aimee McKinlay Envision Engineering Erin West Spectrum Engineers Sid Pawar AJC Architects Chad Campbell BTECH Darrell Hunting Division of Facilities Construction and Management Robin Burr University of Utah Ben Berrett Utah State University Tiger Funk Southern Utah University Jim Russell Division of Facilities Construction and Management Cee Cee Niederhauser Division of Facilities Construction and Management Tani Downing Department of Administrative Services Darrell Hunting Division of Facilities Construction and Management
The Board reconvened in State Office Building 4112. Chair Burgess welcomed the group and called the meeting to order at IO:IO AM.
u UTECH/HIGHEREDUCATIONCAPITALDEVELOPMENTCHANGESSB102 Utah System of Technical Colleges Interim Commissioner Jared Haines and Assistant Commissioner for Facilities and Planning Tyler Brinkerhoff made a presentation on the changes required by SB 102 and what that means for technical colleges in the state. Commissioner Haines explained that SB 102 provided for a restricted fund which will be used for dedicated projects. The Legislature appropriates monies each year for the Board of Trustees to develop plans and provide recommendations for facilities within the technical college system. The bill Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 Page 6 appropriates $"l4 Million ongoing each year but withheld the entire amount the first year as a transitional year and the second year withheld 50% of that amount so the expectation is that in FY21 the system would have $7 Million in the fund and each year thereafter would receive an additional $14 Million again. For this year, the USTC Board of Trustees has identified two priorities: 1. Bridgerland Technical College Health Sciences Building for $36,000,000. 2. Mountainland Technical College, Payson Campus for
Commissioner Haines reported they are in a preparation and planning mode. The Board of Trustees plans to appoint a capital facilities committee in their next meeting who will work closely with College Presidents and staff to develop a plan that includes consideration of a space utilization study for labs and classrooms. In addition, a ten year master plan Tor the system will help track and engage the best way to utilize and prepare for those dedicated project funds.
There was discussion concerning how the building requests will be prioritized in the future and how the funding will be distributed within the system. Jeff Reddoor indicated that USHE will have the money dispersed in percentages. USTC will disperse based on needs to each of the colleges. Master planning will be reviewed carefully in order to strategically plan these projects to make the best use of funding. Non-dedicated projects will continue to come to the Board for approvals.
Jeff Reddoor discussed the presentation from USHE given by Associate Commissioner Rich Amon to the Higher Ed Executive Appropriations Committee which is included in 'the Board's informational packet. This presentation covers the process Higher Ed will use to implement SB 102. Mr. Reddoor mentioned that this year the Board of Regents will meet on September I 2'h to prioritize projects. The Board of Regents will then submit their three projects on the 13'h; there will also be one land bank request which will be separate. There were concerns that this date does not give DFCM adequate time to put their CBE's (Capital Budget Estimates) together for the new projects. The major change for the Capital Development Hearing this year is that there will only be three projects coming forward from Higher Education rather than ten. In addition, state statute requires the Board to score the Regents projects by a higher factor. Last year the Board's prioritization matched USHE priorities but this doesn't always happen. Mr. Reddoor explained the ranking of HE projects which will have a multiple factor of 2.2, 2.O and 1.8 factors.
Jeff indicated that the space utilization study will determine the space HE is utilizing. The study will not be available this year. Higher Ed will consider the space they already have allocated vs how much their present space is being used. The HE handout shows the scoring they will be using - enrollment, performance, student growth, square foot per student, facility age and condition, and space utilization measures will all be considered.
€ BOARD DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT AND NEW ROLE IN CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIZATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CHANGES Jeff Reddoor discussed the recent Legislative Audit which looked at some of the processes used by the Building Board. The auditors felt that many of the changes implemented by the Board in recent years were steps in the right direction; however a question continued to surface Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September4, 2019 Page 7 about the appropriateness of these projects - such as size or use of the building; especially when square footage was added to the building later in the process. Several years ago, the Needs Statement obtained from institutions and agencies were reviewed to include this information. Apparently more is needed. In the future, we will scrutinize to determine if this information is adequate to meet the needs of the Legislature. There was discussion concerning how the Board could come to be more informed and be a player in the project rather than just a rubber stamp. In the future, the Board will be working with DFCM on these projects as well as the creation of the Five Year Book.
DAS Executive Director, Tani Downing commented that additional questions were added to the Feasibility and Needs Statement received from agencies and institutions; however, the Board will need to refine what they would like to receive on these statements in order to address some of the concerns from the Legislative Audit. In addition, Jim Russell commented that the Feasibility Needs Statement, because of time constraints, is going to make it impossible to address all issues this year. It was mentioned that in the future, the dates may have to be changed in order to get good data. Tani Downing commented that DFCM along with the Building Board Chair and Director will need to sit down and talk about what success looks like and how does the audit fit in with the statute. Do we need to change and review things? What does success look like now and in the future?
Mr. Reddoor discussed the Capital Development Hearing that will take place next month. The prioritization will continue to be a two day process but there is a possibility that the score will not be released immediately after our prioritization process. This will give Board members time to address some problems so the scores may be released later.
€ ANNUAL TRAINING IN THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT Assistant Attorney General, Mike Kelley gave an overview of the Open and Public Meetings Act but indicated that Ed Lombard from the Assistant Attorney General's Office would arrive shortly to do the training.
Jeff Reddoor asked Tiger Funk, Assistant Vice President of Facilities Management at SUU to address some concerns with requesting new space vs old space inventoried at SUU. Mr. Funk mentioned that the Board of Regents scoring criteria, awards five points to institutions who take the most square footage off line when requesting a new building. However, President Wyatt mentioned that one of their strategies at SUU is to look at their existing buildings and try to obtain more life out of them. SUU feels they were missing these available points because they weren't demolishing their old buildings, but trying to utilize the space for a little while longer in order to get as much use out of the building as possible. With the new scoring criteria, which is part of this year's consideration; hopefully, this issue has been resolved and will not be an issue in the future. Jeff Reddoor indicated he will meet with President Wyatt to determine if this has been resolved.
Ed Lombard from the Assistant Attorney General's Office addressed the Board about the rules of the Open and Public Meetings Act. Gov. Entities are beholding to the public. The act instructs us to hold your meetings in a transparent and open manner and to the extent possible; everything is out in the open. During the training, Mr. Lombard discussed: Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes September 4, 2019 Page 8
What is a meeting? What is a quorum? (For the Board it is 4 people). Electronic Meetings Field Trips as a Meeting (anchor location) Notice requirements (check the box for media circulation notice) Agenda specificity Extra meeting scheduling and notice requirements Closed meetings Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of misconduct Strategy to engage in discussion of sale of property Staying on Subject with the Agenda - no deviations Minutes- date, time place, members present and absent, recording of votes Recordings Electronic messages - while in a meeting it is a violation to pick up your phone. Crime and punishment Enforcers - Brian Mulder, Attorney General's Office, District Court, Court of Appeals Windows - 30 days if it deals with financial or 90 days for anything else.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 pm and Board members were invited to enjoy lunch. Utah State Building Board
FY 2021 State Funded Capital Development Prioritization Hearing
October 2, 2019
MINuTES
Members in Attendance: Joseph Burgess, Chair Kevin VanTassell Miranda Jones Cox, Ex-Officio Stan Plewe William French Richard Fairbanks Lisa Barrager Wendell Morse Jeff Reddoor, Director
Guests in Attendance: Bret Hardy USDC Charles Goodman USDC Matt Boyer DFCM Dan Clark DNR - Parks Eliot Willcox University of utah Kendall Tate JRCA Architects Joseph Deman Mountainland Technical College Tyson Wa(ker Human Services LTC Vincent Wolfe Utah National Guard LTC Brandon Clark Utah National Guard LTC Chris Filoso Utah National Guard Darin Bird Department of Natural Resources Kelly Snow State Fire Marshall's Office Kim Gibb Department of Public Safety Mark Zesiger DPS/Utah Highway Patrol Mike Rapich Department of Public Safety Kristy Rigby Department of Public Safety Chris Talbot Utah State Courts Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 2
Ken Nye University of Utah Ben Berrett Utah State University Kailie Fennell Arch Nexus Malin Francis Salt Lake Community College Bob Askerlund Salt Lake Community College Bruce Daley Weber State University Eric Isom MIB Partners Julee Attio Reaveley Engineers Josh Macauly Spectrum Engineers Erin West Spectrum Engineers Amber Craighill BHB Structural Engineers Heather Knighton MHTN Architects Brian Wikle Legislative Fiscal Auditors Sid Pawar AJC Architects Matt Boyer DFCM Jim Russell DFCM Lee Fairbourn DFCM Lucas Davis DFCM Clint Bunnell DFCM Tim Parkinson DFCM Jake Njord DFCM Nick Radulovich DFCM Cee Cee Niederhauser DFCM Tani Downing DAS Dr. Frank Rees USDC Fred Johnson Department of Natural Resources Mike Fowlks Department of Natural Resources Drew Cushing Department of Natural Resources Chad Campbell Bridgerland Technical College Celestia Carson VCBO Architects Clay Christensen Mountainland Technical College Scott Wyatt Southern Utah University Tiger Funk Southern Utah University Ruth Watkins University of Utah Peter Trapa University of Utah Noelle Cockett Utah State University David Cowley Utah State University Richard Williams Dixie State University Paul Morris Dixie State University Rich Amon USHE David Woolstenhulme USHE
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 the Utah State Building Board held their FY2021 Capital Development Hearing in Room W30 of the West Building (House of Representatives Building) Utah State Capitol Complex in Salt Lake City, Utah. Chair Joseph Burgess called the meeting to order at 8:30 am. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 3
€ DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON THE NEW PRIORITIZATION PROCESS Jeff Reddoor outlined the process for the new method of prioritization that will take place this year. He instructed the Board that today is the opportunity to review new projects. If there are any questions the agency/institution will be contacted to return to tomorrow's Business Meeting to clarify and provide additional information. At the Business Meeting, DFCM will present their scoring of the projects which can be used as a guide for Board members. When the discussion is over, Board members will break away and score the projects on their own. The Building Board Director will then total the individual scores and provide the combined prioritization to the Board. The Board can have a discussion on the prioritization as presented and if there are any ranking changes a motion will be made to accomplish this. When the prioritization list is in final form, the Board will vote to approve before it is presented to the Governor and the Legislature. Chair Burgess called for a motion on the new process.
MOTION: Richard Fairbanks moved to approve the Building Board's New Prioritization Process. The motion was seconded by Wendell Morse and passed unanimously.
u PRESENT ATION OF THE FY20;?1 CAPIT AL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Department of Public Safety - Brigham City DPS Consolidated Building Deputy Commissioner Mike Rapich and Kristy Rigby explained they are bringing together a project that was originally started in 2017 with the Building Board. This new facility will house the regional section office for the Utah Highway Patrol, Driver License Division, and Communications Center for the Department of Public Safety as well as provide office space for one Fire Marshall employee Tor the area. Mr. Rapich indicated this area of Utah is expected to have 30% growth by 2030 and this building will meet the needs of this growth. The DPS is requesting state funding of $7,525,678 for this 17,350 gross sf facility.
There were questions concerning a seismic study of the new building, and the savings from the leases of their old facilities. Mr. Rapich added that they would need an additional $25,000 in O&M needs for the new building but they are confident they can meet this amount with their budget.
Department of Human Services - New Therapy Building USDC Superintendent Dr. Frank Rees, and Tyson Walker from Administrative Support for Human Services presented their project. Developmental Center is the only state facility for people with intellectual disabilities. There are over 100 individuals who are bound to wheel chairs and require staff assistance to reach facilities for therapy located in various buildings on the Developmental Center campus. The Developmental Center has about 247 therapeutic encounters a day and they anticipate a 20% increase in efficiency with this new facility which Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 4 will greatly minimize transport time and increase staff efficiency and centralization of several services to one area; thus increasing coordination of care and better communication. The New Therapy Building is 25,000 gross sf at a cost of $16,221,906.00 to the state. With this new Therapy Building, the safety of individuals and the staff would improve; the delivery and quality of care would increase by 20% or 12,000 therapeutic sessions through the year. In addition, USDC would see reduced energy and maintenance costs for the new facility. The old buildings previously used would eventually be demolished or repurposed as needed.
There were questions concerning the use of multiple smaller pools rather than one large pool in order to quickly deal with sanitation problems that could arise. Dr. Reese indicated that the size of the pool allows for multiple therapies to happen in the pool at the same time.
There were questions concerning site consolidation costs and the increase of services that this building would provide and the Five Year Plan for the campus and how these additional buildings would fit into the master plan ensuring that this facility fills the greatest need. There was discussion concerning the large amount of property at the Developmental Center and the possibility of selling parts of it. It was noted there is a USDC trust which protects the property; however, a small portion was purchased by the Boyer Company last year. With the growth of population in the state, does USDC have plans for additional housing? Can the building be designed so it can be expanded? Has USDC considered construction of a breezeway to protect patients from the elements when transporting? The Board members were concerned with the needs of the Developmental Center. How will the existing therapy locations be used when the new facility is constructed? Mr. Reddoor said the original request was for 25,000 sf and was later adjusted to a higher amount. USDC should present Jeff Reddoor with the extra O&M for the increase for this facility at tomorrow's Business Meeting.
Department of Natural Resources (Fire)-Richfield Cache Building Deputy Director Darrin Bird gave an overview of the Department or Natural Resources which will present 3 projects this year. The Parks Division is part of the Natural Resources Department which has seven divisions. Their storage facilities are located in rentals and most are inadequate for their needs. DNR is also unique because they have a lot of stuff - fire trucks, fish trucks, construction equipment, snow equipment, ATVs which are at any facility. They use and store fuels and pesticides and fencing materials as well. The proposed Richfield Cache Building will be used for multiple uses for their Department. Most of the DNR facilities are self- funded but the department needs extra help in funding this new storage facility. They are requesting $2,363,806 for this 9,555 gross sf facility.
There was discussion as to whether this Richfield Facility is the regional facility for the area. Presently the DNR is renting a hangar at the Richfield Airport to store some or their equipment.
Department of Naturaf Resources (Parks) - Quail Creek New Campground Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 5
Dan Clark, Research Consultant with Utah State Parks and Recreation presented their newly proposed campground request called South Wash at Quail Creek State Park. The new campground will be on about 22 acres. The request is for $5,209,244 in state funding for this facility which will consist of 34 unit full hookup (power/water) RV Campground with 6 cabin sites. The campground would include restrooms with showers and a group pavilion area. Mr. Clark explained that the existing campground at Quail Creek State Park is operating beyond capacity with a 20-30% increase in visitor's every year. Natural Resources expects a great rate of return on this new campground because of the long visitors season in the Southern Utah area. It was suggested that Parks return tomorrow to the Board's Business Meeting to provide the annual projected revenues for this campground.
There were questions as to why this project was not self-funded by the agency. Wendell Morse commented that the idea is to keep entrance Fees low enough so that all Utahans can use these facilities and this probably contributes to the issue of not being completely self-funded. Parks responded that the rates are low on weekdays and more affordable, but higher when the park reaches capacity on the weekends.
Division of Wildlife Resources - Loa Fish Hatchery Drew Cushing represented the Aquatic Section at the Division of Wildlife Resources. In 2018 recreational fishing contributed 1.1 billion dollars to the economy and 7,500 jobs as a result of the fishing industry. The state of Utah, presently has several different species of fish that need to be restocked in the 50,000 urban fishing waters which require more stocking than a normal location. These facilities are mainly used for our youth and for the elderly who live in these areas. The Loa Hatchery was built in 1936 and is not operational as it presently exists. In 2014, New Zealand mud snails were found at the hatchery so the facility cannot securely raise fish free from disease; and as a result, the invasion of this aquatic species makes this facility inoperable. The DWR is running their other hatcheries at more than 1 00% capacity which contributes to disease and unmet demand. The hatchery maintenance account is not adequate enoughtohandlealltheneedsoftheirAquaticSection. TheDNRisaskingfor$33,892,166of state funds to modernize the Loa Facility making Loa the most cost effective hatchery in the state. The proposed Loa Fish Hatchery could raise a fish from egg to full grown within one year, rather than two years as is happening presently.
There were questions about water rights and water quality at the various facilities which affects productivity. There was discussion concerning site preparation and Mr. Reddoor recommended this be part for the Capital Improvement funding for next year. In addition there was discussion concerning the effects of overproduction and how problematic this is for fish hatcheries including coldwater diseases and the native species recovery program.
The treatment of the New Zealand Mud Snail at the Loa Hatchery was especially difficult because the pipes which bring in water were installed in 1939 cannot be easily cleaned out. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 201 9 Page 6
The hope is to go back to the source of water and treat the facility so they are eradicated. There are treatments to get rid of these and with proper funding the demolition and excavation will help do this the right way. The snails have been successfully eradicated at other facilities. With proper operation, the Loa Fish Hatchery can produce about one third of the state's cold water fish supply.
Utah Courts - Sixth District Courthouse Sanpete County Manti Courts Facilities Director Chris Talbot presented their new Capital Development Project for a new facility in San Pete County. The present Manti building lacks the security features necessary for a courthouse facility. They are requesting state funding of $19,597,906 for a 30,221 gross sr facility with $90,388 requested for additional O&M. Mr. Talbot presented the problems at the present Manti Court facility which has no secure sally port in order to deliver prisoners to a secure area. This is a necessary feature for any courthouse. In addition, the unsecured public parking lot has no separation from the public. A secure entry station for the building with necessary detection equipment is also needed. There should also be secured parking for judges with a privacy fence and a secure clerk's office with an area for retreat if needed. The county population is over 30,000 people and court filings have increased significantly over the past few years. Property for the proposed new Facility was purchased in 2018 and is centrally located off or Main Street in Manti.
There were questions concerning the secure facility for judges and the demolition of the old building. The amount of $1,070,000 has been alJocated from Capital Improvement Funds and is being held for the project. The current courthouse in Manti is owned by the county and they do not want to make the renovations. Additional questions included the design security elements in this building comparative to other facilities and the replication of design for other courthouses.
UTEC Overview UTEC Commissioner Jared Haines and Associate Commissioner Tyler Brinkerhoff gave an overview of UTEC projects. The Davis Technical College Allied Health Science and Technology Building and Mountainland's Trade and Technology Building are presently under construction and due for completion in Fall of 2020. Mr. Brinkerhoff showed the criteria for UCAT scoring and the weight for that scoring. The criteria included growth and capacity, critical programs, cost effectiveness, addressing building deficiencies - life safety concerns, and alternative funding sources. After viewing presentations, the projects are scored and ranked by the Board. UTEC's first priority is the Bridgerland Health Science Building and Mountainland Payson Campus is second. These are both non-dedicated projects.
Board member Miranda Cox Jones asked for an explanation of how the UTEC Board is going to prioritize their project in the future. Will it be the same for dedicated and non-dedicated? UTEC responded that the Board leadership, consisting of the Board of Trustees, will be reviewing projects. There were question on how projects will move through the dedicated and non- Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 20'l 9 Page 7 dedicated projects process and how long it would take for a project to move through the process.
Bridgerland Technical College - Health Science and Technology Building President Chad Campbell from Bridgerland Technical College and Celestia Carsen, Principal of VCBO Architecture presented on the New Health Sciences Building. President Campbell reported that Bridgerland has been in existence for over 50 years. Their role is career preparation in order to provide workforce supply for employers. In order to fulfill that mission in Healthcare related training, they need support from the State. Healthcare programs grew an average of 50% from 1991 to 2010. Eventually, Bridgerland had to turn students away because of the growing demand. This is the eleventh year Bridgerland has submitted a request for this building. Because their present facility does not meet the demand for their programs they have program limits, waiting lists and are presently turning away applicants in the healthcare related training programs. Additional programs are also hurting such as machining technology, and automated manufacturing. The current facility is 48 years old. Bridgerland is having problems with meeting accredited standards for some of their programs which sometimes require repurposing other areas of their current building. Bridgerland is requesting $38,059,576 in state funds for their 74,922 gross sf facility. There is community support for this facility from the medical community as well as all the other technical colleges in the State. Bridgerland already owns the land where this new facility will be built. They have completed the required feasibility study, programming and planning of space with VCBO Architects as well as space utilization study for UTECH. This new facility will have a direct and immediate impact on Utah's workforce by an increase of 70% immediate enrollments. In addition, moving the medical program to a new building, will free up space for other programs to grow; manufacturing, aerospace, information technology and computing will be immediately impacted. There were concerns about the growth in the healthcare system in Northern Utah - how does Bridgerland's need look compared to the other institutions of Higher Ed? How does this building and the programs compare to the new building and programs for Davis Technical College in Ogden?
Mountainland Technical College - Payson Campus President Clay Christensen and Vice President Joseph Demma presented Mountainland's proposal for a new campus in Payson. President Christensen presented statistics on job growth 1.7% increase nation-wide and 3.7% growth in the state of Utah. Last year Utah County experienced 6.6% job growth which interprets that one in every three Utah jobs that were gained last year happened in Utah County. The area of southern Utah County is projected to have over 60,000 new jobs over the next 10 years. Mountainland's programs are filled to capacity with Spanish Fork Facility operating at maximum capacity, leaving few spots for additional students. President Christensen talked about the regional collaboration in the community with school districts, K-12 Alliance, Payson City and UVU to ensure we are not duplicating services for students. However, there are some services that are not available in the area and require travel to the Thanksgiving Point facility at Mountainland. This project has Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 8 received donations from Payson City and other business partnerships providing$4,500,000 from the total project cost. They are requesting $46,215,079 from the state for their 98,000 gross sf building. There were questions concerning the land donation which is contingent on whether the building is funded. How will this be affected if the project is not funded this year?
There were questions about the infrastructure and utilities in the area, the capacity of their programs, the need to expand, and the utilization of space impacted with online programs. In addition, the future of the Payson area and master planning were discussed.
Utah System of Higher Education - Regents Priorities and Overview of Processes for the Year Interim Commissioner David Woolstenhulm and Associate Commissioner of Finance and Facilities Rich Amon presented the Board of Regents priorities and overview for this year. There were six projects that came to the Board of Regents for prioritization this year. Three of these projects will be moved forward as per statute: 1. Southern Utah University - Multipurpose Classroom Building 2. University of Utah - Interdisciplinary Physical Science Education and Research Building 3. Utah State University - Mehdi Heravi Global Teaching and Learning Center
Dr. Amon explained the Regents prioritization process and criteria for scoring projects. There were questions concerning academic programs that were becoming obsolete in the industry and if there are programs to address this? Can there be consolidation of space in the present facilities? There was also discussion concerning the recent Legislative audit and the response to that audit in the Needs Statement.
SUU - Academic Classroom Building SUU President Scott Wyatt and Assistant Vice President of Facilities, Tiger Funk reported on the new Academic Classroom Building which will address the increasing demand on multiple programs at SUU accommodating a growing student body. The new building will have classroom and lab space as well as faculty and support staff offices. In addition, the design will include a great deal of floating space which can be re-modulated for program growth. They have $2,000,000 in previous funding for programing and design. Their state request is $43,013,748fortheir90,000grosssfbuilding. PresidentWyattaddressedtheissueofcost effective solutions by reminding the group of SUU's record with repurposing their old buildings and making them usable for higher purposes.
SUU is growing in terms of program growth and has the highest projected growth rate for the future. They have the least square footage per student oT any institution in Utah and they have the highest utilization rate. This building will be the home for math, science and the aviation department, but will leverage space throughout campus by allowing expansion of engineering Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 9
and computer science in their own buildings, as well as arts, teaching and laboratory space.
There were questions concerning the need and demand for the building as well as the repurposing or buildings and the demand for SLIU's aviation program.
University of Utah - Stewart Building for Applied Sciences University President Ruth Watkins and Dean of the College of Science, Peter Trapa explained that the reason this building has moved to top of their priority list is because of the interest in STEM classes which are in great demand. This project is designed in a very efficient and effective manner to repurposes space they no longer need, the tearing down of an aged facility and the integration of science fields across colleges. This project will include the demolition of the Fletcher Building. This new building will house two different departments which are presently housed in 5 campus buildings. The total budget for the project is $84, 560,663. The University is committed to raising $24,560,663 making their request for state funds at $60,000,000 for 4 40,729 gross sf. There is also an O&M increase of $646,520 for this facility. This building addresses four objectives:
The problems with aging facilities and a falling infrastructure Record stem enrollment, which is critical to the needs of the state The renovation and expansion of the dated, but solid Stewart Building and demo!ition of the Fletcher Building The project will result in a 56% increase in capacity for experimental/ computing labs
USU - Mehdi Heravi Global Teaching and Learning Center Utah State University President Noelle Cockett and Vice President of Business and Finance David Cowley explained the Heravi Global Teaching and Learning Center will address the need to help students in the Foreign Language units. In addition the intensive English Language institute will be provided for in the building which provides English language for their foreign students. This project brings academic support targeted to these language studies; such as, advising, studying, teaching and computing labs, student studying, and tutoring spaces. Total project budget is $17,000,000 with $2,500,000 in funding from other sources. The total state requestis$14,500,000forthis38,429grosssfbuilding. Thisprojectwillrequireanincreasein the state funded O&M of $323,113. It was noted that this building has been scaled back from the original project which was presented last year and now has a greater focus on academic programs.
There were questions concerning the lab spaces vs classroom space in this building, the programs housed in the building and the room for growth. It was noted that the facility will also have broadcast capabilities to other regional campuses. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 2, 2019 Page 10
There were questions about the donor possibilities and fundraising efforts. The leadership of the LDS Church and the presiding Bishopric will provide a letter of support for the building which will help with possible donors.
Dixie State University - Land Bank - President Richard Williams Dixie State University President Richard Williams and Vice President of Administrative Affairs Paul Morris presented their request for land banking. Washington County is growing and continues to grow which is indicative in the University's enrollment of 35% over the past 7 years. The Dixie State University is landlocked. Their master plan accommodates a student body of up to 15,000, but DSU's main campus is small at only 110 acres and property adjacent to campus is almost entirely developed. A Sitla parcel of land is now available just 12 minutes from the main campus and five minutes from the St. George Airport in a planned growth area of the city of St. George and could be used for campus expansion. The cost is $10,075,000 for 126 acres and located in the NW corner of River Road and Southern Parkway.
There were questions about DSU enrollment and the possibility of purchasing property adjacent to the university in the future. Will DSU finish their master plan?
Following the presentations, Jeff Reddoor answered additional questions from the Board concerning the prioritization process and instructed the Board to return the next day for the Business Meeting and Prioritization in Room 4112 State Office Building at 8:30 am. At this time, DFCM will present their prioritization which can be used as a guide for the Board.
u ADJOURNMENT The Chair asked for a motion to adjourn.
MOTION: Kevin Van Tassell moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Stan Plewe and passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 4:0 pm. Utah State Building Board
BUSINESS MEETING AND PRIORITIZATION
October 3, 2019
MINUTES
Members in Attendance: Joseph Burgess, Chair Stan Plewe William French Lisa Barrager Wendell Morse Kevin VanTassell Miranda Jones Cox Richard Fairbanks
Guests in Attendance: Jeff Reddoor Utah State Building Board Mike Kelley Assistant Attorney General Jim Russell DFCM Matt Boyer DFCM Jake Njord DFCM Cee Cee Niederhauser DFCM Ben Berrett Utah State University Malin Francis Salt Lake Community College David Woolstenhulme USHE Rich Amon USHE Scott L. Wyatt Southern Utah University Chris Talbot State Courts Eliot Wilcox University of Utah Peter Trapa University of Utah Kristy Rigby Department of Public Safety Mike Rapich Department of Public Safety Tani Downing Department of Administrative Services Dan Clark State Parks Marvin Dodge Southern Utah University Bruce Daley Weber State University Charles Goodman USDC Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 3, 2019 Page 2
Frank Rees USDC Bret Hardy USDC Tyson Walker Human Services Erin West Spectrum Engineers Kim Johnson Design West Architects Eric Isom MIB Partners Tyler Brinkerhoff UTEC
On Thursday, October 3, 2015 the Utah State Building Board held a Business Meeting and the Prioritization for FY 2021 State Funded Projects in Room 4112 Utah State Office Building, Capitol Hill Complex, Salt Lake City, Utah. Building Board Chair Joe Burgess called the meeting to order at 8:30 am.
u DISCUSSIONS ON FY 2021 STATE FUNDED CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND BANKING PROJECTS Chair Burgess announced the Board would like to hear additional information on some of the projects presented at yesterday's FY 2021 State Funded Capital Development Hearing.
Miranda Jones-Cox representing the Governor's Office of Management and Budget reported that it's too early to tell where revenues will be this early in the process. The GOMB does agree with the rank and prioritization of the Board of Regents and UTEC. In addition, they believe the two agencies with the greatest needs are the Developmental Center and the Manti Courthouse. The GOMB is looking forward to reviewing the Building Board's recommendation and prioritization today.
Dan Clark from State Parks returned to the Board to clarify that he checked records for the property for the proposed campground and it really is 50 acres requested for Quail Creek and not 22 acres as had been previously reported. Scott Strong, Deputy Director over Finance for State Parks was present at the meeting to answer any budget or finance questions on the Parks project. There were previous questions concerning the project funding and how much would be generated from the cottages and the improved campground. If O&M is not calculated as an expense in the total, then revenues would double the investment over 30 years from this project. Mr. Strong noted that based on those numbers, Parks could fund the O&M internally and will retract the $100,000 0&M request attached to this project. They anticipate this campground will generate approximately $300,000 a year. Jeff Reddoor instructed Board members to please make the corrections in their funding spreadsheet and added that the retraction of O&M is a significant cost advantage for this project. It was noted that sewers are really difficult in a campground, so a dump station will be installed. Water and power will also be added.
Mike Rapich from Public Safety also returned to answer additional questions from the Board. First, Mr. Rapich clarified that access to the roadway is part of the project. Partial access is on 1400 South. Perry City's master plan also shows the accesses to the property on their master plan. This opens up access to development for the city as well. Perry City is verbally committed to the project and they are waiting to see how we progress before moving forward. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 3, 2019 Page 3
Even if this doesn't happen quickly the project will still have access on 450 West. Jeff Reddoor asked questions about the various colors on the map and if it would require additional land purchases. Mr. Rapich indicated there are private land issues that are presently being worked on.
Kevin VanTassell asked for additional information from USDC. He questioned Dr. Rees as to whether the USDC project is inadequate. Shouldn't USDC provide breezeways or covered walks as part of this project? Tyson Walker indicated that the fire code aspect of this has been reviewed. There is the possibility of an added breezeway to the one building that is closest to the new facility. Fire code issues would have to be addressed. Jeff Reddoor requested that DFCM provide an alternate project that has covered sidewalks and have this be an option for the project. Hopefully this could be accomplished before the Legislative session begins. There were questions concerning the master plan, the age of some of the buildings and how many buildings on campus were in need of demolition. The Board felt there was such a great need on the campus when they visited this facility last year.
Mr. Van Tassell indicated that there was a $250,000 request for additional O&M on this project and questioned whether additional O&M would be needed after the old buildings were razed or consolidated. Jeff Reddoor asked USDC how their O&M was calculated. If no buildings were being removed then it is the straight O&M calculation based on the number of square feet.
Chair Burgess also referred to the discussion concerning multiple therapy pools at the new facility. Dr. Rees indicated that with funding there may be the possibility of a pool repair in the old facility which would allow USDC to keep both pools operational and provide an alternative on days when there are sanitation concerns. Lisa Barrager was familiar with pool construction and advised USDC that a pool sanitation issue in a new pool could be dealt with in 30 minutes with the new technology. It was noted that the present therapy pool had 104 days where the pool was down which included maintenance and incidence problems with sanitation. Jeff Reddoor commented that with Capital Improvement Funding, there is the possibility that USDC could address some of these issues with the pool and keep both pools operational.
Jeff Reddoor reported that he did not see an email with the updated O&M costs from USDC. Mr. Walker said it had been sent and that it was just over $300,000.
Dr. Rees commented that USDC is very open to the concept of covered parkways for their facility which would be appreciated in inclement weather.
There were questions concerning Whirling's Disease. Roger Mellenthin with the Division of Wildlife Resources addressed this since this can be an issue. There are barriers that can be put in place and a more sophisticated way to deal with the settled solid wastes from fish and New Zealand Mud Snails from coming up into the pond.
[2 PRESENTATIONOFDFCM'SPRIORITIZATION DFCM Director Jim Russell and Matt Boyer, Assistant Director explained their prioritization of projects and referred to the Excel Spreadsheet distributed to the Board. Mr. Russell mentioned Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 3, 20al9 Page 4 that the changes to the prioritization process this year are a response to the Legislative audit. These changes have been accepted by the auditors and the Executive Appropriation Committee with additional ideas coming forth from the Legislature in the future. Hopefully, next year the process will be clarified and improved with additional feedback. One of the items identified in the audit is the idea that if we can collect better data earlier in the process; then we can make better decisions. DFCM agreed to work with the institutions and agencies so that prior to August, DFCM could accumulate all the information for Board of Regents and UTEC, in order to make better decisions. Some of the changes include: 1. Develop a standard for the Needs Statement which will help in the development of the Capital Budget Estimate. 2. Space Utilization Standards will be used in the Future. USHE, UTECH and State Agencies will have individual standards for their entity 3. Identifying a Scope Statement provided by DFCM which will include a disclosure of all areas of the scope so there is more transparency.
Mr. Russell also clarified that because of time constraints and other concerns, this year's ranking is not a prioritization. As DFCM reviewed the projects, because of time constraints, they discovered it was a little late to request additional information From the entity. This created problems with projects that may have a higher need but did not score as high as they should have. Mr. Russell complimented Dr. Amon and the new methods of prioritizations used by USHE. DFCM is trying to provide a quantitative analysis which is quite different than scoring things qualitatively. Three individuals from DFCM reviewed the projects to provide the rankings.
Mr. Russell clarified the scoring criteria: 1. Renovation or Re-Use-If the project is entirely new space then no points were awarded. If moving to a new space which alleviates life safety and ADA issues, then you received 3 points 2. Removal of a bad building out of the mix; then you received 5 points. Ninety percent of public safety was moving to new space from a leased space so they were given points for this. 3. Space Utilization and Need - Used the Higher Ed standard for this. Miranda Cox Jones suggested that this be separated in the future and does not see any correlation between space utilization and need. This will be address in the future.
4. Cost Efficiency - There were 3 subcategories - Feasibility Study - it was pass/fail - either O or 5 - Cost Effectiveness -Efficiency in the Design - consolidation in spaces or services which makes the project more efficient. There were concerns about the absence of a Feasibility Study and how that affects the cost effectiveness of a project. 5. Alternate Funding - projects that have additional funds not appropriations from the Legislature - 5 points if you had it and 0 if you didn't. There were concerns about how Higher Ed can receive donations and agencies cannot which creates a disadvantage. There were also questions about how opportunity for revenues such as with State Parks would affect the project. How could funding be clarified or sure? There was Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 3, 2019 Page 5 an explanation concerning the funding commitment letter which is submitted to the Board. There were concerns that the commitment letter should be in place prior to the ranking. Should this be part of the ranking process? Can a private donor change the state priority? Higher Ed reported that they look at only what is currently on hand and not the potential for fund raising for the project. Miranda Jones-Cox felt that donations and other funds should not be used as ranking criteria. Jim Russell indicated that this component does sway who will get the number one and two spots. It was noted that the number of competitive projects that come forward from Higher Ed will be significantly reduced as their system of ranking is used in the future
Q QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD There were concerns about the scoring for the USDC Therapy Building. Mr. Russell clarified that the Therapy Building received no points on category I where they could have received 5 points if they had agreed to demolish the old building as part of the project. Mr. Russell felt the old Rec Center should be demolished and taken away. The demo is not part of the original project even though they were planning to do this in the future. Representatives understood this should have been included in the project and asked that this be considered in the Board's scoring. USDC clarified that they have Capital Improvement funding to remove the electrical from the old building prior to demolition so that when the building is demolished in the future, it will not affect the transformers all over campus. Although encouraged to do so, they did not commit to demolishing the old building as part of their FY21 Capital Development project.
Modifications - The O&M for the USDC Therapies Building O&M was changed to $301,039.00
The question was asked that when a project is completed, is there a re-evaluation on the O&M based again on completed project square footage. LFA could make an adjustment at the completion of the building if needed. This is done through a performance audit with DFCM.
[] ADJOURNMENT: BREAK AWAY SECTION FOR INDMDUAL SCORING Board members relocated to areas to do individual scoring. The scores were tallied by the Building Board Director.
€ DISCUSSION AND VOTING ON FY2021 STATE FUNDED CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND BANKING FINAL PRIORITIZATION The meeting reconvened at 11:25 pm for discussion and voting. Jeff Reddoor distributed copies of the combined score sheets which indicated rankings for each project. The floor was opened for discussion. Jeff Reddoor asked the Board to determine if the present compiled scores reflect the Board's desire for the final ranking. Dixie State's Land Bank project should be scored as a yes or no.
When the Board returned, Chair Burgess asked if there was any discussion on the final ranking. Jeff Reddoor distributed the prioritization list and read the ranking to those in attendance. Kevin VanTassell expressed appreciation to all the institutions and agencies for their projects. He indicated it was a difficult decision because of the quality of the projects coming forward. Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes October 3, 2019 Page 6
Wendell Morse said that USDC would be his number one project if there were more direction. He would like to see an updating to the Master Plan and more building consolidation in the future.
Utah State Building Board FY 2021 Capital Development - State Funded Projects Scoring Sheet
?l I I I I :!)a'j I I i sma: ! u S! i ffiWffil r4Jl'Hl$'Jm'll'-11Mi lii'll'lallMi' a i a iiI + { 'lliTtT i'l-i"ffJ a t;11 10II I il'll'll-1 aill'lll$i I Bridgerlatid Teihinical College (BTECh Health Science And Technology Building $ 38,059,576 $ 1,UCO,J € O $ 39,059,576 10 1
Soukhem utah University Academic Classroom Building $ 43,013,748 $ 2,000,000 $ 45,013,748 12 2
State Courts Sixih District Couithouse Sanpete County Manti $ 19,597,906 $ 1,070,655 $ 20.668.561 26 3
Public Safety Brigham City DPS Consolidated Building $ 7,525,678 $ 2,050,000 $ 9,575,678 32 4
Department of Nalutal Resources - Fire Richfield Cache Building $ 2,363,806 $ $ 2,363,808 33 5
University of utah Applied Science Building $ 60,000,000 $ 24,560,663 $ 84,560,663 48 6
Division of State Parks Quail Creek New Campground $ 5,209,244 $ $ 5,209,244 54 7
Division ofldlife Resour>s Loa Fish Hatchery $ 33,892,166 $ $ 33,892,168 56 8
Department Of Hunian Services/ uSDC Therapy Building $ 17,568,755 $ $ 17,56B,755 57 9
Utah State university Mehdi Heravi Global Teaching and Leaming Center $ 14,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 17.000,000 59 10
Mountainland Technical College (MTECH) Payson Campus $ 46,215,079 $ 4,500,000 $ 50,715,079 75 11
Dixie State Llniveisity LAND BANK LAND BANK $ 10,075,000 $ $ 10,075,000
Totals $ 298,020,958 $ 37,681,318 $ 335,702,276
Grand Total $ 335,702,278
Chair Burgess asked for a motion to approve the FY202t Capital Development Prioritization and Land Bank Request.
MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to approve the FY2021 State Funded Capital Development Prioritization and to move the Land Banking Request from Dixie State University fonuard to the Legislature.
DFCM Research Consultant Jane Njord introduced himself and requested agencies and institutions contact him to contribute data for the Five Year Book which will be published for the Legislature in early 2020.
Jeff indicated that non-state funded projects will be heard in December. If there are enough items for the agenda, the Board could possibly have a November Meeting.
Chair Burgess asked for a motion to adjourn.
u ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Kevin VanTassell moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Lisa Barrager and passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11 :55 am. Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Like City, Utah 84114 Plione (801)538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To Utal'i State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: 2020 Building Board Meeting Schedule
Attached is the 2020 Building Board Meeting Schedule. This is an infonnation item only and does not require approval.
JR: m Attachments
Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert. Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utali 84114 Plione (801) 538-3261 Fax (801) 538-9694
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2020 Subject: 2020 Building Board Meeting Schedule
Thefollowingisthe2020meetingschedulefortheUtahStateBuildingBoard. Themeetingswillbegin at 9:00 a.m. unless specified different on the agenda.
DATE TENT ATIVE LOCATION
New Taylorsville State Office Building Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4315 South 2700 West
Wednesday, April 1, 2020 New Taylorsville State Office Building (Approve Allocation of Capital Improvement Funds) 4315 South 2700 West
New Taylorsville State Office Building Wednesday, June 3, 2020 4315 South 2700 West
New Taylorsville State Office Building Wednesday, August 5, 2020 4315 South 2700 West Wednesday, October 7, 2020 30W House Building Hearing for Capital Development Requests State Capitol Complex Thursday, October 8, 2020 New Taylorsville State Office Building Business Meeting and Prioritization of Capitol 4315 South 2700 West Development Requests Wednesday, December 2, 2020 New Taylorsville State Office Building Non-State Funded Capital Development Requests 4315 South 2700 West YH!U UNIVERSITY Patricia A. Ross OFUTAH Chief Business Strategy Officer
201 PresidentsCircle,Room201 aSaltLakeCity,utah841l2s801-585-7832sp*[email protected]
October 25, 2019
Mr. David R. Woolstenhulme Commissioner Board of Regents Bui]ding, The Gateway 60 South 400 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1284
Dear Commissioner Woolstenhulme:
The University of Utah hereby requests approval from the Board of Regents to proceed with seeking bonding authorization from the state legislature to support exercising its Purchase Option for the 102 Tower Building located at 102 South 200 East in Salt Lake City, Utah at the 2020 legislative session. The purchase price has been set within the existing Lease Agreement at $50,000,000 until February 28, 2021. Following appropriate due diligence, the University will rehim to the Regents to obtain approval to close on the property acquisition.
The 102 Tower building in downtown Sa]t Lake City is the home of the University's IT groups for both the academic campus and the University's health system. The acquisition of 102 Tower presents an opportunity to significantly reduce annua) ongoing occupancy expenses for the University. Operations and maintenance, debt service and reserve funding post-acquisition represent average annual costs savings of $1.67M. This translates to $11.54M over the remaing lease tcrm. Additional details can be found in the attached slides.
The University of Utah's Board of Trustees reviewed and approved the request for bonding authorization during the October 9, 2018 meeting.
Accordingly, we would welcome the opportunity to present this bonding request to the Finance and Facilities Committee at the November 15, 2019 Board of Regents' meeting.
Thank you, as a]ways, for your consideration and support.
Chief Busi Strategy Officer
V. Watkins Dr. Richard Arnon Jonathon Bates Bo
Executive
November 15, 2019
ij. :
Ffflffll
s. a . l i I l all THE UNIVERSITY OF -UTAH
Occupant Summary o University occupies 74% of-th-e buildin-g o Building is a total of 192,037 sf o TOTAL FTE's: 88 o University IT: 281 o Hospital IT: 400 o Medical Billing for SOM: 200 THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
The Why
Purchase Date: 1-Jul-12
FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 FY24-25 FY25-26 FY26-27 (Partial) TOTAL Current Projected Expense: S 3,384,108.62 S 3,487,182.55 S 3,597,805.43 S 3,717,457.11 S 3,847,912.06 S 3,991,298.22 S 2,729,801.36 6 24,755,565.35
Projected DebtService & Reserve: S 3,617,066.19 S 3,128,328.00 S 3,122,396.00 S 3,120,896.25 S 3,123,352.50 S 3,119,378.50 S 2,082,204.00 S 21,313,621.44 Projected Operating Expenses: S 1,202,054.40 S 1,241,618.37 S 1,282,544.38 S 1,324,882.05 S 1,368,682.91 S 1,414,000.52 S 973,927.01 6 8,807,709.65 Projected Revenue: S(2,352,793.55) S(2,412,623.79) 5(z,aza,gos.
Projeded Savings: S 917,781.58 S 1,529,859.97 S 1,667,670.54 S 1,811,211.76 S 1,966,559.43 S 2,139,656.84 S 1,511,116.88 6- 11,543,857.00
a Repay-ment Of unamortized abated rent of $2.5M. a Paid for by.cash from U1T/ITS reserves at closing; not a-c6rgpo.nent of bonding. a Included in proforma.
@ Proforma of remaining term of fease (6 yrs, 8 mths) THE-UNIVERSiTY OF UTAH
Purchase Approval Schedule a - Board ofTrustees Campus Master Plan Committee
* September 25, 2018
* Board ofTrustees
* Odober 9, 2018
@ Board of Regents o ' November 15, 2019 a Bonding authorization miil be sought during thp 2020 session of the State of Utah Legislature.
Approval to close to be contingent on completion of the following due diligence items: a Appraisal aa Title review and ALTA survey o 3rd party review of mechanical, eledrical, plumbing and strudural systems. a Phase I Environmental survey Current market value estimated at $69M+.
Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Like City, Utali 84114 Phone (801)538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: University of Utah Health Sciences Campus Office Space Presenter: Robin Burr, Chief Facilities Officer at University of Utah
Recommendation I am recoinrnending the Board hear the University of Utah's bonding request for the Health Sciences Campus Office Space.
Backgroiuid The University of Utah plans to construct a Health Sciences Campus Office Space Building to provide office space for the School of Medicine as well as providing relocated office areas for many employees currently house within Building 521 which will be scheduled for demolition. The preliminary cost estimate (total project) is $105,100,000 for this 250,000 square foot building. TheUniversityrequestspermissiontoissuea$100,000,000revenuebondforthe pro5ect. The bond will be repaid from clinical revenues and other non-state revenues of the UniversityHealthSciences. Thebalanceof$5,100,OOOwillbeprovidedfromHealthSciences clinical reserves. No state funds are being requested for O&M.
JR: cn Attachments
FY 2021 Capital Development Project Request & Feasibility Statement
Type of Request: OState Funded [g]Non-State Funded @Non-State Funded with O&M Request @Land Bank € Dedicated State Funded € Non-Dedicated State Funded
Agency/Institution: University of Utah
Project Name: Health Sciences Campus Office Space
Agency/Institution Priority: N/A
Project Scope:
Total Project Space (Gross Square Feet) 250,000
New Space Requirement (Gross Square Feet) 250,000 Remodeled Space (GSF) Space to be Demolished (GSF) 598,651 (this request is one of the buildings replacing building 521)
Types of Space
This project will construct approximately 250,000 square feet of office space (and office support space) to support the growth of the School of Medicine as well as providing relocated office areas for many employees currently housed within Building 521, which will be scheduled for demolition.
Capital Funding:
Preliminary Cost Estimate (Total Project): $105,100,000 ($420/SF)
Construction Cost Breakdown: Building Only $59,578,895 ($238/SF) Coru"iector Bridge with Elevator Tower $12,252,274 ($49/SF) Site Complexity $ 6,608,562 ($26/SF)
Comparable Buildings:
* University of Utah - Carolyn & Kem Gardner Commons - 220,000 sf Total project cost was $69,215,670 ($315/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent with this project request) arrives at a total project cost per square foot of $368/sf.
l Construction cost was $58,976,235 ($268/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent with this project request) arrives at a construction cost per square foot of $313/SF.
* University of Utah - Garff Executive Education Building - 140,000 sf Total project cost was $45,823,827 ($327/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent witli this project request) arrives at a total project cost per square foot of $382/SF. Construction cost was $40,049,519 ($286/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent with this project request) arrives at a construction cost per square foot of $334/sf.
* Medical Offices at Peer Institution in Wisconsin- 330,000 sf Total project cost was $113,850,000 ($345/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent with this project request) arrives at a total project cost per square foot Of $403/SF. Construction cost was $90,750,000 ($275/SF). Escalating this to 2021 (consistent with this project request) arrives at a construction cost per square foot of $321/sf.
*Note that the (2) University of Utah examples above did not require bridges. The proposed Health Sciences Campus Office Space includes a bridge that makes up $49/SF of the construction cost. The Peer Medical Institution included a bridge half of the length as the one proposed at the University of Utah.
Constructiori Budget Estimate (CBE) attached
Previous State Funding None
Other Sources of Funding $105,100,000
The University requests permission to issue a $100,000,000 revenue bond for the project. This bond will be repaid from clinical revenues and other non-state revenues of UofiJ Health Sciences. The balance of $5,100,000 will be provided from Health Sciences' clinical reserves.
FY 2021 Requested Funding
Ongoing Operating Budget Funding:
Increase in State Funded O&M: % of total O&M
Using the state O&M funding formula, the estimated O&M cost for this building is $2,240,000 (250,000 GSF X $8.96). This will be funded from clinical revenues and other non-state revenues of UofTJ Health Sciences.
The University is applying the following measures to increase the cost effectiveness of the project and resulting building:
-2- * Energy usage and the reduction of emissions is a priority for the University of Utah. The building will comply with the State of Utah higli efficiency building standards as well as the requirements of LEED Silver.
* Operating and occupancy standards for office space are being revised to increase utilization through the use of shared offices and support space and promotion of telecommuting opportunities. Thus the space will support more individuals per square foot, resulting in an overall reduction of ritilities compared to the current state.
New Program Costs: $0
No new programs will be operated in this building project. This project will replace existing office space scheduled for demolition and provide needed expansion office space for the campus.
New FTEs Required for O&M and Programs O&M O Programs 0
No state funding for O&M is requested. We do not anticipate adding new employees to support the O&M for this project. Most project occupants are currently located in Building 521, which is scheduled for demolition. This facility is aging, requiring a higher tlian risual cost for O&M. Some of the existing resources to support the office component of building 521, will be used for this new office building project. The project's modern infrastructure and equipment will lower the costs and personnel required to maintain it, compared to current operations.
Existing Facility:
This project is a component of a broad, multi-year, work space strategy, that will provide growth space forthe Health Sciences campus, while relocating many ofthe office functions in Building 521 (old School of Medicine Building), a facility that was designed to be state of the art almost 60 years ago.
Building 521 occupants are severely compromised in terms of safety and performance, due to deteriorating infrastructure, outdated seismic restraint and inadequate architectural and technological systems. Studies have concluded that the main electrical service is obsolete and the emergency power provisions and communications network inadequate to meet current demands. Mechanical andplumbingsystemsarebeyondtheirusefullife. Theairhandlingsystemsarevulnerabletofailure at any time.
Existing systems are kept functioning by replacing components as they fail. Potential system failure is a constant challenge forthe facilities staffas building systems have exceededtheirintendeduseful life. The University has been making regular investments into the infrastructure to maintain
-3- serviceability, but tlie return on tliis investment is limited. The facility will be demolislied once all personnel and programmed are relocated.
Existing Space (square feet) Currently Occupied:
Anticipated building occupants currently reside in approximately 195,000 gross square feet of office space. Tliis pro3ect is patt of a broad based solution to provide both on and off campus work space options, and anticipates a similar rate of growth to what we liave experienced in tlie last decade. This project, coupled with additional leased solutions, will provide for the
anticipated 011 campus office needs for approximately five years. Growth rates and work styles will be closely monitored to readjust the model and develop estimated requirements for years 6- 10.
Project Executive Summary:
This project will provide both replacement and growth space for many of the office functions in Building 521, a facility that was designed to be state of the art almost 60 years ago. Occupants are severely compromised in terms of safety and performance, due to deteriorating infrastructure, outdated seismic restraint and inadequate architectural and technological systems.
Approximately 1,200 faculty and staff will be relocated to the new office building, all of whom require close proximity to tlie clinical, research and academic programs on the Health Sciences campus. The Scl'iool of Medicine faculty have been growing at approximately 7% per year over the last decade. Tliis is expected to continue, as additional clinical providers are needed to support the current and future census growth, while also increasing research and academic opportunities to fulfill the strategic objectives of the organization.
The population of the State of Utah, Salt Lake City, and orir region, continues to increase, requiring growth in clinical providers to meet health care demands. In addition, the University's research and academic programs continue to expand to meet the needs of our burgeoning population, and the strategic objectives of the University. This office building is a key component of the Health Sciences campus overall workspace strategy, to demolish Building 521, and to provide workspace for faculty and staff to support state and regional growth projections.
In Novei'nber 2018, University of Utah Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Michael Good, MD, establislied the Work Space Taskforce (WST) to develop workspace solutions to support current and on-going organizational growth. Tl"ie SOM faculty currently exceeds 2,000, and its combined facuIty and staff has grown at an average rate of 5% per year over the last decade. This growth is expected to continue over the next ten years, due to the anticipated census growth of the region and institutional strategic plans.
Most of the project occupants are curtaently located in Building 521, which is no longer able to provide effective workspace, due to deteriorating infrastructure, outdated seismic restraint, and inadequate architectural and technological systems.
-4- Tl'ie WST developed a 10-year projection of faculty and staff growtli within tlie School of Medicine. This was based on historic information, census projections and institutional strategic plans.
Categories of faculty and staff work styles were developed, and allocated space for modeling purposes. Consideration was given to traditional work models with enclosed offices and limited shared interaction space, to models that were more open, suppoiting an increasingly mobile workforce.
A hybrid space allocation model was ultimately developed, witli increased sharing of office space for faculty and staff, elimination of assigned work space for certain job types, a larger distribution of workstations for full time staff, and a higlier ratio of shared, ratlier than individually assigned communal space. The model creates flexible space solutions that will also support an increasingly mobile workforce.
The Taskforce identified and discussed more than 15 potential workspace sites, both on and off campus, to accommodate existing Building 521 occupants and growth. Tl'ie locations included existing on-campus facilities that could be expanded or internally renovated, campus sites available for new construction, as well as off-campus leased and new construction opportunities.
Each possible site option was evaluated on a predetermined set of criteria including proximity, site/building capacity and expansion opportunity, site availability, cost and time to develop, transportation/parking proximity, and traffic ii'npact. These were narrowed and aligned with the projected 5-year and 10-year space requirements, and the organizational strategic plan.
This project is urgent as Building 521 continues to fail, while the School of Medicine continues to grow. Additional office space is required to allow the demolition of this building to proceed. Interim office solutions will require investment in leasing multiple off- campus sites, to accommodate current requirements as well as anticipated growth if this project does not move forward. Long-term investment in multiple, dispersed leased sites is an ineffective use ofresources, fragments programs, and ultimately costs more to accomplish.
This project will provide approximately 250,000 s.f. of work space including enclosed offices (both individual and shared), workstations, 'touchdown' work space, and office support areas such as conference rooms, break areas, etc.
This project is a major component of the University of Utah Health Sciences campus work space strategy as it will provide replacement space in addition to supporting growth. Of the 2,000 employees currently working in Building 521, approximately 820 existing FTEs and 400 medical residents will be relocated to the new office building. In total, the new office building will house approximately 1200 FTEs and 400 medical residents. An additional 250 FTEs will be hired prior to project completion, with another 100 existing (and future) FTEs to be accommodated via unassigned 'touchdown' work space. The space will be assigned based on the Work Space Taskforce guidelines. Of the remaining Building 521 employees, some will relocate into the Medical Education & Discovery (MED) project, others to existing wet bench research space, and
-5 otliers, not requiring campus proximity, will shift to off-campus office space.
We do not plan to offer programs or courses in this facility.
Tlie anticipated net to gross ratio is 56% which reflects the larger amount of circulation space required due to the small size of work stations.
Feasibility/Planning:
A pro3ect feasibility study is being submitted as a separate document.
The University of Utah School of Medicine continues to expand to meet tl'ie needs of our growing state. In the last 10 years, SCIIOOI of Medicine faculty have grown by approximately 7% per year, while staff have grown approximately 3-5% per year in tlie last decade, for a compounded growth rate of approximately 5% per year for the last decade. This on-going growth, coupled with tlie need to demolish Building 521, which is home to approximately 2,000 employees, requires a multi-pronged workspace strategy.
In November 2018, University of Utah Senior Vice President for Health Sciences, Micliael Good, MD, established the Work Space Taskforce (WST) to develop workspace solutions to support current and on-going organizational growth. Ongoing growth, between 5%-7% per year is expected to continue over the next ten years, due primarily to the anticipated census growth of tlie region, and institutional strategic plans. [Note: We are in the process of updating our current institutional strategic plan. Updates will be finalized in the beginning of 2020. New draft goals and objectives have been incorporated into our projections.]
Most of the project occupants are located in Building 521, which is no longer able to provide effective workspace, due to deteriorating infrastructure, outdated seismic restraint, and inadequate architectural and technological systems.
Numerous comprehensive studies ofBuilding 521 have concluded that it should be demolished rather than renovated. A 2011 engineering study concluded that long-term use of Building 521 is not viable, both from the standpoint of cost and safety. A 2013 study determined that the building's seismic issues are significant enough that the building is unsuitable for continued use as a clinical care and research facility. Additionally, the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems of the building are at the end of their lifespan, with the possibility of component and catastrophic failure at any time.
This project is critical to the mission of the institution for several reasons - first and foremost is the need to vacated Building 521 for life safety, due its compromised and aging building systems. Secondly, the School of Medicine continues to expand to support the growth of the city, state and region. Workspace to support this growth has been severely constrained, creating difficulties with program operations and recruitment.
-6- The Work Space Taskforce developed a 5-year and 10-year employee projection based on historic growth, census projections, and the institution's strategic plan. Categories of faculty and staff work styles were developed and allocated space for modeling purposes. Consideration was given to traditional work models with enclosed offices and limited shared interaction space, to models that were more open, supporting an increasingly mobile workforce.
A hybrid space allocation model was ultimately developed, with increased sharing of office space for faculty and staff, elimination of assigned work space for ceitain job types (with associated use of 'touchdown' space), a larger distribution of workstations for full time staff, and a higher ratio of shared, rather than individually assigned, communal space. The model creates flexible space solutions that will also support an increasingly mobile workforce. The anticipated space allocations are summarized in the following table:
Category Office Type Ratio
CLINICAL FACULTY - CAMPUS SHARED 120 1:2 CLINICAL FACULTY - DISPERSED SHARED 120 1:2 ACADEMIC FACULTY AVERAGE 80 1:1 RESEARCH FACULTY AVERAGE 80 1:1
SERVICE / ADMINISTRATIVE FACULTY AVERAGE 80 1:1 FACULTY LEADERSHIP OVERSIZED 160 1:1 M ANAGEMENT STAFF LARGE 120 1:1 CLINICAL STAFF - 10% SHARED 120 1:2 CLINICAL STAFF - 90% WORKSTATION 42 1:1 ACADEMIC STAFF SHARED 120 1:2 RESEARCH ST AFF WORKST ATION 42 1:1 RESIDENTS & HOUSE ST AFF RESIDENT 36 1:10 SUPPORT STAFF - 10% LARGE 120 1:2 SUPPORT STAFF - 90% WORKSTATION 42 1:1 TELECOMMUTERS TOUCHDOWN 36 1:5
The Taskforce identified more than 15 workspace sites, both on and off campus, to create additional offices. These included existing on-campus facilities that could be expanded or internally renovated, campus sites available for new construction, as well as off-campus leased and new construction opportunities.
Each possible site option was evaluated on a predetermined set of criteria including proximity, site/building capacity and expansion opportunity, site availability, cost and time to develop, transportation/parking proximity, traffic impacts and alignment with the projected 5-year and 10- year projected workspace requirements.
The Taskforce recommended construction of a new office building, near the TRAX Station, within walking distance of the hospital facilities, via connector. This on-campus solution will
-7- suppoit many Building 521 office relocations and associated growth for the next five years. Tliis solution is coupled witli additional, off-campus office space, to suppoit existing and future needs, and to align witli community/geograpliic strategies.
Approximately 2,000 people currently work in Building 521. The new office building will provide individual assigned and sliared work space, as well as touchdown space to suppoit approximately 1,200 FTEs and 400 residents. Most, but not all of these occupants will relocate from building 521. Remaining Building 521 occupants, and School of Medicine growtli, will be supported in space located in existing campus buildings, or in leased space off the Healtli Sciences campus.
A firm has been engaged and is actively studying the proposed building site. Massing studies have been developed within existing view corridor restrictions, along with block schematics of floor layouts to confiri'n fit, veliicular and pedestrian accessibility, and alignment with the campus master plan.
Key objectives include improving the pedestrian connection to TRAX services, improved connections to the University of Utah shuttle bus system and UTA transit, and reducing the amount of traffic on Mario Capecchi Drive. An adjacent parking structure will be rised to support building occupants, thus reducing traffic along the congested Mario Capecchi Drive. Tlie building's direct adjacency to the TRAX Station should also encourage use of mass transit, fuither reducing congestion on the campus. A new bridge will be constructed over Mario Capecchi Drive (at the TRAX Station), reducing pedestrian traffic across this busy roadway.
The facility site has been studied through the Campus Master Plan Update of 2013, and subsequent campus feasibility studies. Environmental impacts to the site are expected to be limited, as the site is a portion of the university campus with adjacent development. Campus utilities have been upgraded and will support the new facility. Electricity will be provided via two existing substations. Communications will utilize existing infrastructure. Capacity exists to support the development of this project. In addition, the demolition of Building 521 with greatly reduce current demand.
State System of Higher Education, Additional Statutory Required Information:
This project will allow the vacating and demolition of an aging facility that no longer adequately supports the needs of the organization. It creates on-campus office space for employees who require close proximity to the clinical, research and academic operations of the health sciences campus, and supports an overall distributed work space solution.
Positive economic benefits include the recruitment and retention of exceptional faculty and staff. This building and on-going workspace solutions will indirectly allow for an expansion of research, clinical and academic programs, supporting state needs, by providing the work space needed for these programs.
Land Bank Acquisition Requests:
-8- N/A
Photographs and Maps:
Site:
HS Office Building
Prlmaiy Chlldten% Outpatlent Seivlces
Eccles Bioadcait Center
-9- Conceptual Massing:
S cri r irig Ana!ysis for Building Board Request Evaluation Guide:
N/A
CBE attached.
10 - University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Capital Development Projects
Project Name: Workspace for University of Utah Health Sciences
Agency/Institution: University of Utah Health Sciences ProjectManager: NirmanRajbhandari Cost CostSummary 5Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost S 64,763,904 5259.06 Utility Fee Cost S 264,342 51.06 Additional Construction Cost S 90.00 Site Cost S 12,252,273 S49.01 ' Bridges and Connections High Performance Building S 1,159,208 54.64 Total Construction Cost S 78,439,728 S313.76
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials S Pre-Design/Planning S 414,701 Design 9 4,021,575 Furnishings & Equipment S 10,145,000 Information Technology S 3,820,529 Utah Art S 200,000 Testing & Inspection S 784,397 Contingency S 3,734,925 Moving/Occupancy S 587,500 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) S 117,660 User Fees S Legal Services (0.1% of Construction Budget) S 78,440 DFCM Management S 150,440 Commissioning S 720,958 Other Costs S 1,846,875 Total Soft Costs S 26,622,999 S106.491
Total Project Cost S 105,062,727 S420.251
Funding Other than State Capital Development: Revenue Bond (repaid by UuHC revenues) S 100,000,000 UUHC Clinical Reserves S 5,062,727 S S S 105,062,727 Previous State Capital Development Funding: S S S
Request for New State Capital Development Funding S (O)
Projed Information GrossSquareFeet 250,000 BaseCostDate 9/19/19 NetSquareFeet 250,(XIO EstimatedBidDate 1/1/21 Net/GrossRatio 100% Est.CompletionDate 8/1/22 LastModifiedDate 9/19/19 PrintDate 10/31/19 CBE Details Capital Development Projects
Project Namei Workspace for University of Utah Health Sciences /Institution: University of Utah Health Sciences Project Manager: Nirman Raibhandari
Description Explanation units Unit Cast Escalated Cost
FacilityCost GSF New Faclrity Cost Details: CoreandShell 250,000 '> 100 5 25,000,000 S 26,434,247 SlteComplexities Steephlll;noaccesson3sides;adjacenttoTrax 250,000 '> 25 5 6,250,000 S 6,608,562
Tenantlmprovements 250,000 S 120 S 30,000,000 5 31.721.096 Subtotal-NewFacilityCosts 250,000 6 61,250,0009 64,763,904
Remodel Facility Cost Details: N/A - S - S - S -S -S -S Subtotal - Remodel Facility Costs S - S
TOTALFACILITfCOST 250,000 S 61,250,(1(10S 64,763,904
utility Cost Detailsi WaterUtilityFee - S - S ' S SewerUtilityFee - S - S - S ElectricitylltilityFee - S - S - S StormWatetutilityFee - S - S - S GasUtilityFee - S - S - S ConnectionFees Lumpsumallowance 1 S 250,000 S 250,000 S 264,342 -S -S -S TOTALUTILIT/FEECOST 5 250,0[10S 264,342
Additional Construction Cost Detailsi 20%ADA Requirement (ifapplicable) Applicable onlywhen remodelingof"primaiyTunction" 20.00% S - S S spaces le.g office ipace in an office building). Llp to 20% of remodel budget is allocated solely to improving the accessible route to the primary function. If atcessible route It adequate, the allocation is not needed.
-S -S -S -S -S -S TOTALADDITIONALCONSTRUCTIONCOST S - S
Site Cost Details: EastWestBridge BrldgeacrossMarioCappechiWayicost/IT) 550 G 12,500 S 6,875,000 9 7,269,418 MovingWalkways MovirigwalkwaysonBridgeConnectionicost/IQ 550 S 6,250 5 3,437,500 S 3,634,709
Connectlontolohna.MoranEyeCenter Allowancetoconnecttoexistlngbrldge 1 S 75,000 5 75,000 S 79.303 ElevatorToweitoBridge LumpSumAllowance 1 6 1,200,000 '> 1,200,000 S 1,268,844 -S -S -S TOTALSITECOST S 11,587,500S 12,252,273
l TOTALCONSTRuCTIONCOST ya,isa,au S 78,439,728 l
PROJECT INFORMATION: otal NetSquare Feet: 250,000 Cost Date: Estimated Bid Date: Estimated Completion Date. Last Modified Date: Escalation Factor Included: Factor I ncluded:
Hazardous Materials Cost Detallsi Pre-ConstructionSurvey N/A - S - S ' S AbatementDocuments N/A - S - S - S PlanandMonitoring N/A - S - S - S Abatement/Removal N/A - S - S - S TOTALHAZARDOUSMATERIALSCOST S - S
Pre-Design/Planning: Pie-Design / Programming O.31% S 242i20l FeasibilityStudy VCBO/COFeesforFeasibilitystudy 1 '> 97,500 '> 97,500 Master?lanning N/A - S - S Programming lncludedinPre-Oesign/Programming - 6 - S Study tncludedinFeasibilityStudy - S - S Geotechnicallnvestigation/Surveys 1 '> 65,000 '> 65,000 CulturalResourceConsulting&Monitoiing 1 S 10,000 S 1(1000 -S -S io7iitzoig -S -S TOTALPRE-DESIGN/PLANNINGCOST S 414,701 CBE Details Capital Development Projects
Namei W6rkspace for University.of Utah Health Sciences /lnstltutloni University of Utah Health Sciences Project Manageri Nirman Rajbhandari
Description Explanation units Llnit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
Design Costsi
Calculated A/E Fee Fill out "A & E Fee Calculator" to Calculate Fee 4.77% S 31831,575 =S -S -S -S Total A/E Design Fees S 3,831,575
SchematicDesign Includedabove - 9 - 5 DesignDevelopment Includedabove ' - S - S ConstructlonDocuments :lncludedabove - S - S BiddingServlces Includedabove - S ' - ..S ConsttuctionAdminlstration Includedabove - 9 - l"> ExtraServices Includedabove - S - 5 Reimbursables Includedabove - '> - 5 SpecialtyConsultant FF&EBIdPackageaiidCooidiiiation 1 ,6 1501000 " > 150,000 DonorRecognition Designonly 1 '> '20,000 S 20,000 IntegratedBranding DesignandBidPackage I S ' 20,000 9 20,000 InteriorDesign Includedabove - S - S ValueManagement Includedabove - S ' - S -S -S -S -S TOTALDESIGNCOST S 4,021,575
Fumlshlngs & Equipment Costsi
NewFurnishings ' S - S Woikstationsicublcles) 1,000'> 6,2505 6,250,000 OfflceFumitures 440 '> " 7,500 5 3,300,000 -S -S -S -S TotalFurnishlngs S 9,550,000
Breakroomequlpment 10 '3 10,000 9 100,000 DockEqulpment 1 5 30,000 '> 30,000 Woikoutroomequipment 1 6 100,000'5 100,000 Foodservlceequipment 1 S 250,000 S 250,000 Computers, copleis, & prlnteis at shared spaces 1 9 115,000 5 115,000 TotalEqulpment 5 595,000
FF&EDeslgnCosts lncludedindesign,above ' - S - S Owner Provided FF&E Installation Included In design, abode - S - S TOTALFURNISHINGS&EQUIPMENTCOSTS S 10,145,000
Information Technology Costsi 11niversity IT PM Fees Fill out 'UIT PM Fee Calculator' to Calculate Fee 9 80,529 ulT Swltches, 045, UPS, Design 250,000 '> 12 9 3,000,000 ITCabling&Connections lndudedlnConstructionCost - 9 - S PhoneSysterns&Equlpment 1,fi009 1509 240,000 AV/TLT 1 S soo,ooo S 500,000 -S -S TOTALINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYCOST S 3,820,529
Testing & Inspection Costs: Building Code Inspection 1% ofTotal Construction Cost S 784,397 MaterlalTesting Includedabove - '> - '> Speciallnspections Includedabove - S - S -S -S -S -S TOTAL TESTING & Inspection COSTS 9 784,397
Movlng/Occupancy Costs: StandardMovingCosts 250,0009 1.85S 462,500 MovingComputeis 25010009 19 125,000 -e -S -S -S TOT AL MOVING/OCCUPANCY COSTS S 587,500
DFCM Management: DFCMManagementFee 9 150,440 -S -S 1(1/tl/X)19 httpi://dfcm.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/Non-state-funded-proect-fees.pdf TOTALDFCMMANAGEMENT S 150,440 CBE Details Capital Development Projects
Project Namei Workspace for University of Utah Health Sciences /tnstitution: University of Utah Health Sciences Project Manager: Nirman Rajbhandari
Description Explanation Units unit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
User Feesi PM Fee Based on UoflJ Policy S N/A - S - S -S -S TOTALUSERFEES S
Commlssioningi CxA-SystemsCommissioning PerDFCMSchedule 1 0.75%'> 588i2!18 BECxA-BuildingEnvelopeCommissioning PeyDFCMSchedule 1 0.15% S 117.660 EE-EnergyEngineering PerDFCMSchedule I S 15,000 S 15iOOO -S -S https://dfcm.utah gov/wp-content/uploadi/AE-Fee-Schedule-12-12-20l7.pdf TOTALCOMMISSIONINGCOSTS S 720,958
Other Costsi Other Tunnelextensionstudy&implementatlon 1 6 525,000 S 525iOOO utilityShutdowns 1 5 100,000 S 100,000 DiggingPeymits N/A - S . - S Signage&Graphics 250,000S 3S 750,000 ExteriorBuildingSignage 1 5 150,000 S 150.000 Locks&Cylindeis 625S 75S 46,875 SecurityCameras/CCTVSystem 250,000 S O.50 S 1251000 CardReadeis 25 S 4,000 S 100,000 Facllitlesequipmentsandinstallationishops) 1 6 50,000 '> 5ClOOO -S -S TOTALOTHERCOSTS S 1,846,875
% 4 of 4 ltygl/201g University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Capital Development Projects
Project Name: Workspace for University of Utah Health Sciences Agency/Institution: University of Utah Health Sciences ProjectManager: NirmanRajbhandari Cost CostSummary SAmount PerSF Notes Facility Cost S 64,763,904 5;>sg.os Utility Fee Cost S 264,342 51.06 Additional Construction Cost S SO.OO Site Cost S 12,252,273 5ag.oi " Bridges and Connections High Performance Building S 1,159,208 S4.64 Total Construction Cost S 78,439,728 S313.76
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials s Pre-Design/Planning S 414,701 Design S 4,021,575 Furnishings & Equipment S 10,145,000 Information Technology S 3,820,529 Utah Art S 200,000 Testing & Inspection " 784r397 Contingency S 3,734,925 Moving/Occupancy S 587,500 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) S 117,660 User Fees S Legal Services (0.1% of Construction Budget) S 78,440 DFCM Management S 150,440 Commissioning S 720,958 Other Costs S 1,846,875 Total Soft Costs S 26,622,999 5ios.agl
Total Project Cost S 105,062,727 6420.25i
Funding Other than State Capital Development: Revenue Bond (repaid by UUHC revenues) S 100,000,000 UUHC Clinical Reserves S 5,062,727 S S S 105,062,727 Previous State Capital Development Funding: S s S
Request for New State Capital Development Funding S (O)
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 250,000 BaseCostDate 9/19/19 NetSquareFeet 250,000 EstimatedBidDate 1/1/21 Net/GrossRatio 100% Est.CompletionDate 8/1/22 LastModifiedDate 9/19/19 PrintDate 11/26/19
Utah State Building Board
(,Bry R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Like City, Utali 84114 Plione (801) 538-3018 Fax (801)538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: University of Utah Health Sciences Garage and Roadway Improvements Presenter: Robin Burr, Chief Facilities Officer at University of Utah
Recommendation I am recoinmending tlie Board hear the University of Utah's bonding request for the Health Sciences Garage and Roadway Improvements.
Background The University of Utah plans to construct a Health Sciences Garage and Roadway Improvements which will consist of a new 1,400 stall, 462,125 gross square foot parking garage adjacent to the University Hospital and Huntsman Cancer Institute, with bridges to each hospital. The garage incotaporates a parking facility that was included in the Kathryn F. Kirk Center for Comprehensive Cancer Care and Women's Cancers that was authorized by the Legislature in 2019. In order to address the long standing traffic gridlock along the main entry road to these critical health care facilities, the University plans to rebuild North Medical Drive and add a tunnel to the new parking garage. The total cost for the project is $80,000,000.
The University request pennission to issue a revenue bond to provide $80,000,000 for the project. This bond will be repaid from UUHC clinical revenues along with parking revenues and other non-state revenues of the U of U Health Sciences. No state O&M is being requested.
JR: cn Attachments
FY 2021 Capital Development Project Request & Feasibility Statement
Type of Request: € State Funded [ZNon-State Funded @Non-State Funded with O&M Request [2]Land Bank € Dedicated State Funded [I]Non-Dedicated State Funded
Agency/Institution: University of Utah
Project Name: Health Sciences Garage & Roadway Improvements
Agency/Institution Priority: N/A
Proiect Scope:
Total Project Space (Gross Square Feet) 462,125
New Space Requirement (Gross Square Feet) 462,125 Remodeled Space (GSF) o Space to be Demolished (GSF) o
Types of Space
Constructanewl,400-stall,462,125 GSF,parkinggarageadjacenttotheUniversityHospita} and Huntsman Cancer Institute, with bridges to each hospital. This garage incorporates a parking facility that was included in the Kathryn F. Kirk Center for Comprehensive Cancer Care and Women's Cancers that was authorized by the Legislature in 2019. Also, to address long-standing traffic gridlock along the main entry road to these critical health care facilities, the University plans to rebuild this road (North Medical Drive), and add a tunnel to the new parking garage.
Capital Funding:
Preliminary Cost Estimate: $80,000,000
Summary of Cost Components (construction & soft costs': North Medical Drive Rebuild (including tunnel to Parking Garage) $17,071,095 1,400 Stall Parking Garage $59,213,540 Bridge from Garage to U Hospital: $ 9,615,365 Total Project Cost $85,900,000 Less Scope Approved in HCI Ph V Project ($ 5,900,000i Scope/Bonding Approval Requested $80,000,000
I Comparable Costs: The escalated construction cost of the parking garage, excluding unique features listed below, is $23,500 per stall. This is comparable to tlie construction cost of the last three parking structures constructed on the University of Utah Campus:
* Shoreline Ridge Parking Structure ($19,389 per stall in 2016; escalated at 5% per year to today is $22,500 per stall)
* Noithwest Parking Structure (22,645 per stall in 2015; escalated at 5% per year to today is $27,525 per stall)
* Business Loop Parking Structure ($17,299 per stall in 2015; escalated at 5% per year to today is $21,050 per stall). Cost excludes playing field installed on roof.
There are several unique features of the proposed garage that increase the construction cost per stall. Most impoitantly is its hillside location, which requires hard rock excavation, shoring, & three levels of underground parking. The escalated construction cost for the garage, before incorporating the unique features listed below, is $32,900,000, or $23,500 per stall. These amounts are based on a preliminaiy cost estimate prepared by one of the major local contractors. During programming and design, we will be looking at ways to reduce tlie costs of those elements, as well as elements that are elective. The unique features relative to the parking garage include (construction cost only):
Construction Cost
* Additional site excavation in hard rock $ 427,025
* Shoring & additional concrete quantity $ 9,983,690
* Concrete wall waterproofing $ 341,422 * Mechanical ventilation $ 1,590,924 * Fagade Upgrade (connects to Huntsman) $ 1,350,000 * Rooftop solar panels, light wells, & roofing $ 1,954,000 * Bridge connection to Huntsman Hospital $ 1,428,349
@ Security Measures Due to Proximity to Neighbors $ 272,000 Total Construction Cost of Unique Features $17.347.410
Construction Budget Estimate (CBE) is attached.
Previous State Funding None
Other Sources of Funding $80,000,000
The University requests permission to issue a revenue bond to provide $80,000,000 for the project. This bond will be repaid from UUHC clinical revenues along with parking revenues and other nonstate revenues of UofLT Health Sciences.
FY 2021 Requested Funding $0
-2- Ongoing Operating Budget Funding:
Increase in State Funded O&M: $0 % of total O&M
The state O&M funding fori'nula does not apply to parking garages. The estimated O&M cost for the parking garages is $350,000 based on University experience with other parking garages. This will be funded from UUHC clinical revenues along with parking revenues and other nonstate revenues of UofU Health Sciences.
New Program Costs: $0
New FTEs Required for O&M and Programs O&M (j Programs Q
Existing Facility:
Existing Space (square feet) Currently Occupied N/A
Roadways: Existing roadways were not designed to accommodate the volume of traffic coming to the Hospitals and Clinics at the University Campus. Intersections and roadways will be widened, with added turn and through lanes, round-abouts, and tunnel access to the new parking garage. These new features will greatly improve access and traffic flow.
Garage: Thereisanoverallshortageofparkingtoservestaff,patientsandvisitorstoUniversityand Huntsman Cancer Institute Hospitals and Clinics. The new garage will provide patient, staff and visitor parking to meet the needs of Huntsman Hospital Phase V, which is currently in construction. It will also allow us to temporarily vacate the 950 space Hospital Terrace Garage in order to complete necessary seismic upgrades and other improvements without a loss of patient parking. Once the Hospital Terrace Garage upgrades are complete, there will be a net gain of parking, which is intended to address current and growing unmet need. Hospital Terrace Garage upgrades, which are not part of this scope, are expected to cost $8M. We will seek approval for this work in early 2022.
Project Executive Summary:
The purpose of this pro3ect is to improve the patient and visitor experience upon arrival at our Health Sciences Campus, and to address aged roadway infrastructure and a shortage of parking to meet growing demand. The project will add 1,400 parking spaces and upgrade North Medical Drive so that it can safely and adequately handle traffic to our Hopitals and Clinics.
University Hospitals and Clinics, and the Huntsman Cancer Institute, serve a growing number of patients in Utah and the Mountain West. Services include specialty and care care, and level 1 trauma services not available elsewhere in the Region. These services also provide jobs to our growing community, attract talented physicians and researchers to Utah, and served as a training arena for the state's medical education programs.
-3 It is critical that tliis work be completed by the time the Kathryn F. Kirk Center for Comprehensive Cancer Care and Women's Cancers opens in mid-2022. Without it, parking will not be available to serve the expanded services, and roadways issues arormd safety and capacity will worsen.
Feasibility/Planning:
All project proposals MUST INCLUDE a study that demonstrates project feasibility, including: 63A-5-104(2)(b)
See attached study completed by Architectural Nexus which determined that "traffic issues along North Medical Drive are considerable". It also determined that "current parking needs for visitors and staff outnumber the stock of available stalls" and noted that this shortage will be exacerbated when the current addition to the Huntsman Cancer complex is completed. The confusion and delays in traffic as well as inadequate parking have been a substantial concern of patients and visitors.
This project addresses growth at the Health Sciences Campus as identified in our Campus Master Plan, which was updated and approved by the State Board of Regents in November 2018. We are working on a related study to increase the use of public transportation by faculty, staff and students. However,this added parking is needed to address a patient and family population that may not be able to use public transportation due to health iSSues and travel distances from out of state.
We have reviewed this project with our neighbors through a series of community meetings, and continue to work closely with those who will be most impacted by the work. We intend to meet the requirements of Salt Lake City ordinances related to work hours, noise, and site lighting.
State System of Higher Education, Additional Statutory Required Information:
University Hospitals and Clinics, including the Huntsman Cancer Institute, provides training to the future doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, and other liealth professionals in the state of Utah. In addition, we provide a broad array of skilled and technical jobs in the community. By improving roadway access and addressing parking needs, we assure that patients can safely navigate our campus, and that access to emergency services are not impeded due to roadway bottlenecks.
Land Bank Acquisition Requests: N/A
-4- Photographs and Maps:
1. Mario Capecchi Intersection Upgrades a. Dedicated turn & slip lanes 2. North Medical Drive Upgrades a. 2 additional ltmes+ twmel access to new garage b. System ofround-a-bouts 3. New Patient Garage, Phase I a. 1,400 space garage 4. Pedestrian Bridge from Garage to University Hospital a. Enclosed and conditioned, with moving walkways 5. Hospita} Terrace (Lot 50) Garage Upgrades a. Future phase to extend garage life by 20-30 years
Scoring Analysis for Building Board Request Evaluation Guide:
N/A
CBE attached.
-5- University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Capital Development Projects
Project Name: Health Sciences Garage & Roadway Improvements Agency/Institution: UniversityofUtah ProjectManager: RickJOhansen
Cost CostSummary $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 58,447,410 $i26.48 i400 Stall Parking Garage, 500 LF Bndge Utility Fee Cost $ 250,000 $0.54 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ 14,555,000 $31.50 Roadway Improvements LEED $ $0.00 Total Construction Cost $ 73,252,410 $158.51
Soffl Costs: Hazardous Materials $ 17,500 Pre-Design/Planning $ 1,247,029 Design $ 5,098,085 Furnishings & Equipment $ 275,000 Information Technology: $ 482,281 Utah Art (1 % of Construction Budget) $ Testing & Inspection $ 732,524 Contingency $ 3,519,483 Moving/Occupancy $ Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% ofConstruction Budget) $ 109,879 Legal Services (O.1% of Construction Budget) $ 73,252 DFCM Management $ 145,252 User Fees $ Commissioning $ 168,481 Other Costs $ 775,000 Total Soft Costs $ 12,643,767 s:xz.:isl
TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 85,896,177 siss.szl
Previous Funding $ 5,900,000 Non-State Funding Sources $ 80,000,000
REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ (3,823)
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 462,125 BaseCostDate 6/27/19 NetSquareFeet 462,125 EstimatedBidDate 1/2/21 NeUGrossRatio 100% Est.CompletionDati 6/1/22 Last Modified Date 8/7/19 Print Date 1 0/31 /19
10/31/2013 CBE Details Capital Development
Project Name: Health Sciences Garage & Roadway Improvements university of Utah Manager: Rick Johansen
Descrlptlon Explanation Units Unit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
FacilityCost GSF New Facility Cost Delalls: New Parking Garage - Phase 1 462,125 GSF 462,125 Base garage cost 1,400 stalli 1,400 9 231500 5 32,!100,000 9 32,900,000 Hard rock blastlng 1 9 427,025 '> 427,025 5 427,025 Additionalconcrete&shorlngquantitydueto I S !1,983,6% 5 9,983,690 S 9,983,690 ietainage Concretewallwaterptooflngduetoretalnage I 6 341,422 5 341,422 S 341,422 Mechanlcalventllatloni31evelsfullyundeyround) I '> 1,590,924 9 1,590,924 S 1,590,924 Fagadeupgrade(connectstoHuntsman) 1 5 1,350,000 S 1,350,000 S 1,350,000 Rooftopsolarpanels,lightwells,&roofing I 9 1,954,000 S 1,954,000 5 1,954,000 BrldgeconnectlontoHuntimanHospital I S 1,428,349 S 1,428,349 9 1,42g,349 SecurltyMeasuresDuetoProxlmltytoNelghbors I 6 272,000 S 272,000 S 272,000
NewPedestrlanBridgefromtheParkingGaragetoU 5,300GSF 5,300 5 1,547 S 8,200,000 9 8,200,000 Hospital, wlth 2-way movlng walkways
Note: Escalatlon Is Induded In the Costi based on the S - S schedule presented on 06-27-19 S -S S -S Sub!otal - New Faclllty Costs 462,125 $ 58,447,50 $ 68,447,410
Remodel Facility Cost Details: S -S S -S S -S Subtotal - Remodel Faclllty Costs $ _ $
TOTALFACILITYCOST 462,126 $ 58,447,410 $ 58,447,410
Utility Cost Details: Water Utlllty Fee S - S Sewer Utllity Fee S - S Electricity utllity Fee S - S Storm Water utility Fee S - S Gas Utllity Fee S - S ConnectionFees 1 9 250,000 5 250,000 5 250,000 S -e S -S TOTALUTILITYFEECOST $ 260,000$ 250,000
Additional Construction Cost Details: 20%ADARequlrement(tfappllcable) I S - S - S S -S S -S TOTAL ooomoxac CONSTRUCTION COST $ - $
Site Cost Details: Nonh Medical Drive llpgrades ReconTiguie the roadway for the Garige and HCI Phase 5 9 - 9
ShorkDogBoneOptlon 136,142 5 48 9 6,534,816 9 6,534,816 TunnelOptlon 10,137 S 337 S 3,412,184 S 3,412,184 MarioCapecchi I 9 2,5831000 5 2,683,000 9 2,683,000 Allowanceforutllltyrelocatlon,Incompetentsoll I 9 1,925,000 5 1,!125,000 S 1,925,000 conditions, or unforeseen site conditions S -S Note: Escalation Is Induded In ths Costs based on the 5 _ S schedule pteiented on 06-27-19 S -S
TOTALSITECOST $ 14,555,000$ 14,555,000
If NIA, change YES to NO. To supersede S- 112% ILEED calculation, snlsr anvounf In utul cost
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 73,252,410 $ 73,252,410 I
OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION: otal Net Square Feel: 482,126 Cost Date: Bid Date: 11212021 Completion Date: Last Modified Date: Inflatlon Escalation Factor Included: Location Factor Included:
pg. 2 oT 4 iolailzoig CBE Details Capital Development
Project Name: Health Scient.es Garage & Roadway Improvements University of Utah Rick Johansen
Description Explanation Units Unit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
Hazardous Materials Cost Details: Pie-ConslnuclionSuivey IS 2,500 S 2,500S 2,500 AbalemenllI)ocuments IS 2,500 ') 2,500§ 2,500 Plan and MOnllonng I S 2,500 S 2,500 5 2,500 Aba(emenURemoval 15 1(1,0(105 10,0005 lo,Don S -') S -S TOTALHAZARDOUSMATERIALSCOST $ 17,500$ 17,500
Pre-Design{Planning: Pre[IlesignlPtogtamming 1.20% S 73,252,410 S 879,029 FeaSibilllySlutly ATChNeXuSStudieSandLa9t0nCOnSi.ServlCes 1 S 178,000 S 178,000 MasletPlanning S PTogtamming S Study S Geolechnicallnvesligalion{Surveys 1 S 125,000 5 125,000 CullutalResoutceConsulling 1 S 65,000 S 65,000 CullutalResoutceMonilonng 5 S S TOTALPRE-DESIGN/PLANNINGCOST $ 1,247,029
Design Costs:
Calculated A/E Fee Fill out "A & E Fee Calculator" to Calculate Fee 5.42% S 5,098,085 Fee Includes factors as Multiple Bid Packages, S Accelerated Schedule, Complex Site & Englneerlng
S Total AIE Deslgn Fees S 5,0(18,085
Schematic[Ilesign S I)esignDevelopmsnl S ConsltucllonDocuments S BiddlngSetvices 5 ConsltuclionAdminislralion 5 ExltaSetvices S Reimbuisables S SpeclaltyConsullanl S DonorRscogn+llon S InlegtaledBranding S Inlenoroeslgn S ValueManagemenl S S S
TOTALDESIGNCOST $ 5,098,085
Furnishings & Equipment Costs:
NewFumishings - S - S SyslemFumishings S S S TotalFumlshlngs S
Ownerparkinggarage&ioadequlpment,aineeded 1 9 125,000 9 125,000 s TotalEqulpment S 125,000
FF&EDeslgnCosts S Owner Provided FF&E Installation Allowance for %spital Aesthetlcs - Entry & Bridge 1 S 150,000 S 150,000
TOTALFURNISHINGS&EQUIPMENTCOSTS $ 275,000
Information Technology Costs: Llnivetslly IT PM Fees t:ll out 'UIT PM +'ee Calculator' to Calculate Fee S 32.281 IT Design 1 S 25,000 S 25,000 IT Ca51lng & Conneclions I 9 150,000 S 150,000 Phone Systems & Equipment 1 S 25,000 S 25,000 Distnbuted Anlenna Syslem (DAS) 1 S 250,000 S 250,000 S s
TOTALINFORMATIONTECHNOLOGYCOST $ 482,281
Pg 3 oT 4 10/31/20E CBE Details Capital Development
Project Name: Health Sciences Garage & Roadway Improvements Agency{Institution: University of Utah Rick Johansen
Descrlptlon Explanation Llnlts unlt Cost Cost Escalated Cost
IL NIA. change YES to NO. To supersede 1% calculation IUTAH ART eniet amount In unit cost
Testing & Inspection Costs: sullding Code Inspecilon 1% ofTotal Construction Cost S 732,524 MaterlalTesllng Included S Speciallnspeclions Included S S S TOTAL TESTING & inspection COSTS $ 732,524
MovinglOccupancy Costs: standard Movlng Costs Rough budget provided by Space Planning Is 65/SF - S S S Movlngl"hone&oata S s s TOTALMOVING/OCCUPANCYCOSTS $
DFCM Management: [)FCMManagementFee S I 5 145,252 S 145,252 httpi //dfcm utah gov/wp-content/uploadi/Non-state-Tunded-proieclfees.pdl TOTALDFCMMANAGEMENT $ 145,252
user Fees: PM Fee Baied On uoru Policy Seled Project OT Study: Pioled S - S - S BulldlngOfflcialFee 5 FlteMarshallFee S S TOTALUSERFEES $
Commissioning: CxA-SyslemsCommissioning PeTDFCMSChedUle I 0.11%S 80.578 BECXA-BUlldlngEnvelopeCommissioning PeTDFCMSchedule I O.07%' S 51,277 iEE-EnstgyEnginsstlng %rDFCMSchedule 1 0.D5%.5 36,626 S hitps //dTcm utah gov/wp-content/uploadi/AE-Fee-Schedule-12-12-2017 pdf TOTALCOMMISSIONINGCOSTS $ 168,481
Other Costs: 01110} Roadshutdowns 1 S 175,000 S 175,000 lllility Shutdowns I Retouling 1 5 z50,000 5 150,000 Slgnage&Gtaphics I 9 150,000 ') 150,000 Locks,Cyllndets,&CatdRsadsts 1 9 35,000 9 35,000 SecunlySyslemslCameraslCCTV 1 5 265,000 9 265,000 s S TOTALOTHERCOSTS $ 775,000
Previous Funding: (Only show state approprlated fundlng & include costs covered by that fundlng In approprlate category.) HuntimanVAuthorlzatlonforParklng 1 9 5,900,000 5 5,900,000 S TOTALPREVIOUSFUNDING $ 5,900,000
Non-State Funding Sources: (Llst and describe each iouice) s S go,ooo,ooo S 80,000,000 S s S TOTALOTHERFLINDINGSOURCES $ 80,000,000
Pg 4 of 4 10/31/2019
University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Capital Development Projects
Project Name: Health Sciences Garage & Roadway Improvements Agency/Institution: UniversityofUtah ProjectManager: RickJohansen
Cost
CostSummary $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 58,447,410 $126.48 1400 Siall Parking Garage; 500 LF Bridge Utility Fee Cost $ 250,000 $0.54 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ 14,555,000 $31 .50 Roadway Improvements LEED $ $0.00 Total Construction Cost $ 73,252,410 $158.51
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials $ 1 7,500 Pre-Design/Planning $ 1,247,029 Design $ 5,098,085 Furnishings & Equipment $ 275,000 Information Technology: $ 482,281 Utah Art (1 % of Construction Budget) $ Testing & Inspection $ 732,524 Contingency $ 3,519,483 Moving/Occupancy $ Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% ofConstruction Budget) $ 109,879 Legal Services (0.1 % of Construction Budget) $ 73,252 DFCM Management $145,252 User Fees $ Commissioning $ 168,481 Other Costs $ 775,000 Total Soft Costs $ 12,643,767 $27.361
TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 85,896;177 $185.871
Previous Funding $ 5,900,000 Non-State Funding Sources $ 80,000,000
REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ (3,823)
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 462,125 BaSeCOStDate 6/27/19 NetSquareFeet 462,125 EstimatedBidDate 1/2/2al Net/GrossRatio IOO% Est.CompletionDati 6/al/22 Last Modified Date 8/7/19 PrintDate 11/26/19
11/26/2019
Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utali 84114 Plione (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: University of Utah Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addition Presenter: Robin Burr, Chief Facilities Officer at University of Utah
Recommendation I am recommending the Board hear the University of Utah's request for O&M funding for the Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addition for Engineering.
Background The University of Utah will be expanding the Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building to accornrnodate anticipated growtli in their Engineering programs. This Phase 3 'expansion (new construction) will address needs in teaching and research Jabs, faculty offices, student spaces, and building suppoit areas. The master plan includes 15 offices (3,024 NSF to accommodate ten faculty and 25 students), ten labs of various sizes (5,966 NSF total) to house a modern undergraduate shop, undergraduate and graduate design spaces, a mechatronics teaching space, a modern Thermal Fluid Energy Systems teaching facility in support of core program knowledge and graduate student program lab space (2,029 NSF). The preliminary cost estimate for this 18,089 Gross Square Feet Expansion is $9,685,047.
The University is requesting an increase in state funded O&M of $162,100. O&M funding was calculatedusingthestateO&Mfundingfon'nula: $162,100(18,089GSFx$8.96). ForO&M funding purposes, all of the space is being treated as the classroom/office category as the Jabs that will be constructed do not have the elements that result in increased O&M costs.
JR: cn Attachments
FY 2021 Capital Development Project Request & Feasibility Statement
Type of Request: € State Funded € Non-State Funded §Non-State Funded with O&M Request @Land Bank € Dedicated State Funded € Non-Dedicated State Funded
Agency/Institution: University of Utah
Project Name: Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addition for Engineering
Agency/Institution Priority: N/A
Proiect Scope:
Total Project Space (Gross Square Feet) 18,089
New Space Requirement (Gross Square Feet) 18,089 Remodeled Space (GSF) o Space to be Demolished (GSF) o
Types of Space:
Anticipating that we would soon need more space to accominodate the rapid growth in Engineering, a master plan was created during the redevelopment of the Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building, that identified the teaching and research Jabs, faculty offices, student spaces, and building support areas needed in a Phase 3 expansion. Some of the spaces will accommodate new ME faculty hires funded by the Utah Engineering Initiative, while others will be used for faculty and Jabs currently housed in other buildings, freeing that space to be assigned to other departments that have rapidly-growing programs.
The master plan includes 15 offices (3,024 NSF to accommodate ten faculty and 25 students), ten labs of various sizes (5,966 NSF total) to house a modern undergraduate shop (critical to the development of needed mechanical engineering skills), undergraduate and graduate design spaces, a mechatronics teaching space, a modern Thermal Fluid Energy Systems teaching facility in support of core program knowledge, and graduate student program lab space (2,029 NSF).
The earlier work on a master plan will enable the University to initiate this project quickly, addressing a current critical space shortage, and bridging the College's space needs until a new building can be planned and built.
Capital Funding:
Preliminary Cost Estimate: $9,685,047
The Phase 3 expansion is 100% new construction, and is unique in that it has difficult building access, it ties into the existing structure on three sides, and does not benefit from economies of scale due to the small size of the project (18,089 GSF). However, thanks to good planning, Phases 1 and 2 (mostly remodel work) sized mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure to accomodate Phase 3.
1 Comparable Building Costs:
University of Utah Crocker Science Center 122,897 SF (Combined building renovation and new construction) Total construction cost was $46,582,000. Escalating this to 2020 construction start (consistent with this pro5ect request) arrives at a construction cost of $463/SF.
Thatcher Chemistry Building (100% new construction) 43,934 SF Total construction cost in 2011 was $17,546,342. Escalating this to 2020 construction start (consistent witli this project request) arrives at a construction cost of $565/SF.
Weber State University Tracy Science Center (100% new construction) 185,000 SF Total construction cost in 2016 was $58,500,000. Escalating this to 2020 construction start (consistent with this project request) arrives at a construction cost of $420/SF.
Capital budget estimate is attached.
Previous State Funding None
Other Sources of Funding $9,685,047
Project Funds will come from a combination of donations and other institutional funds.
FY 2021 Requested Funding $0
Increase in State Funded O&M: ,$162100 100% of total O&M for the addition
Estimated O&M was calculated using the state O&M funding forinula: $162,100 (18,089 GSF X $8.96). For O&M funding purposes, all of the space is being treated as the classroom/office category as the labs that will be constructed do not have the elements that result in increased O&M costs.
State O&M funding is requested as this facility addition involves exclusively academic space addressing growth in engineering programs in response to the Engineering Initiative supported and funded by the Legislature. The redevelopment of the Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building took an aging building for which the state was paying O&M, that had no insulation in the walls and was otherwise extremely energy inefficient, and turned it into an efficient and sustainable LEED Gold building. Phase 3 will also be built to LEED Gold standards to minimize the cost of operation and maintenance, making the cost of O&M for the full building with the Phase 3 addition well below that of the original building with many fewer square feet.
New Program Costs: $0
Expansion of the engineering programs has already been funded through the Legislature. This addition will address overcrowding and program growth.
New FTEs Required for O&M and Programs O&M jQ. Programs Q
-2- Existing Facility:
The Meclianical Engineering program is currently housed in five buildings:
Civil & Materials Engineering Bldg. faculty offices 957 NSF Engineering Studies Bldg. labs and student office 8,637 NSF Merrill Engineering Bldg. Jabs and offices 31,334 NSF Sorenson Molecular Biotechnology office and Jab space 306 NSF Rio Tinto Kennecott ME Bldg. Jabs and offices 40,385 NSF Existing Space Currently Occupied: 81,619 NSF
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that Utah has the fastest-growing tech sector in the country. In the year 2000, there were 1,500 high tech companies in the state; today there are 6,700. This industry growth has created an unprecedented demand for graduates in Engineering and Computer Science. The Utah legislature has addressed this workforce need with a program called the Engineering Initiative, that is focused on growing the capacity of higher education to produce more graduates in these areas. This program has been very effective at the University of Utah, where tlie number of graduates has more than tripled over the time of the Engineering Initiative. As more faculty, advisors and staff members have been added to educate the larger studentbody, the College has densified space ritilization, sliaring space, and utilizing bottleneck teaching Jabs from early morning to night and on Saturdays. But the growth in students and faculty have now outstripped the space in tlie College of Engineering.
The need for more space is throughout tlie College, and an addition to the Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building (Kennecott) will help other departments as well as Mechanical Engineering, since ME laboratories currently located in the Merrill Engineering Building will be consolidated into the Kennecott Building, enabling other fast-growing departments to expand into the vacated spaces. The current plan is to move the following teaching laboratories into the space created by the Kennecott Phase 3 expansion: Current/New Laboratory Current Location Area (ft') Kennecott Location Undergraduate Shop 1341 MEB 2,123 / 1,739 GF NW Thermal Fluid Systems 1156 MEB 2,339 / 2,038 GF SW/NE/SE Mechatronics Lab 2410 MEB 1,078 / 791 IF NE Freshman Design Lab 1155 MEB 2,143 / 820 IF SE Senior Design Lab 1155 MEB 2,143 / 578 lfSW
This is an example of the College's densification of space utilization, as these laboratories will occupy about one-third less space than they currently have. The space made available in MEB is desperately needed by the School of Computing, Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Biomedical Engineering.
Through the Engineering Initiative, the Mechanical Engineering Department has nine new faculty positions. But it has no faculty offices or laboratories available. Across the college, there are 41 open faculty positions, and there are only three offices available. The College has also been funded by the legislature for additional advisors and staff, resulting in a need for another ten offices. Clearly, the growth of Engineering is constrained by a lack of space.
-3 Proiect Executive Summary:
Given tlie number of available, funded positions and the State's need for more graduates from the College of Engineering, the completion of the Kennecott Phase 3 expansion is crucial. We are hoping to break ground in 2020.
The enrollment of students in engineering and computer science disciplines at the University of Utah has grown dramatically in recent years as seen in tliis figure showing undergraduate enrollment in tlie College of Engineering.
5,000
College of Engineering Undergraduate Enrollment 4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000 iil. , % ffll
1,500
1,000
500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Since 2005, the College of Engineering undergraduate enrollment has grown by 2,549. Graduate student enrollment has also grown. A full 27o/o of all Ph.D. students at the U are now in the College of Engineering. This overall increase in enrollment has predictably translated into growth in the number of graduates since the Engineering Initiative was started.
When Governor Michael Leavitt established the Engineering Initiative, he challenged higher ed to double and then triple the number of graduates in engineering and computer science. The next figure shows that we have done that at the University of Utah. In his keynote address at the Utah Tech Innovation Summit this April, he said, "The Engineering Initiative of 18 years ago is not enough for the next eighteen. It's time to dorible it again."
-4- 4 '11111 1LUIJ 1122%,.
1000 College of Engineering Graduates . . IT I) I I # PhD, MS, BS 71 I , 800 4 i r!- Li !t I &I ? 11 ! I # !- ri t 4 !! I KlI i 4 X: (: 366 - , @ , T A ;l ! I 600 I I Ifl . i. i. (:il .! r ' i' I 4 :i l: T l- 71 I (' t! # f ::4a. ;% t 4 0 % 2: !ri tat i 0 -K '\ li !l( i! '. : K! [ f ', :. i k4' I 4 i (,.. y. :'l ] ; i I i W !i _I __J !(l[i I I k i! {l -l 400 if-ffl!ll[' I a6 }} , ii f IIli }v ! V -i !_l i; i I ! ,'l flX' lh I ff #0 ia gi XI l' 11 < ' ,i ii i' % :, i! i: i 'i 00 !f I ), !: I f i i, !l I tl [. fl f i i .) I "i !! f y'; II } I j i' ) :, &i t ' HJ it i i: l "'l I' 00i f: i' + I i (0 i i at ) (, )) I I i{ it I ri ) {{. !i !i ia t; i, I I I ! l II !i )l i, [' ! (] , I :i i, H I !, . 'i 200 - (, ) i§ -l I, L_l I ] i. E , fl, li il J7U '! i I FO U %;: Ij !! I i il {. I i. il: ,li, t I f. i :d L )! I f: li :, !r i! II A, i }. !)i{ :i :1 [ }, !l )+ I il !. ; i, N} ii. ii ii k: ii Hl }} )' ){ .i '1 {i I O! i 11 {. !, ii. !i i) I i: I i) # '+ :, I %I, l' !{ ! 'l t. J, i' II f:, li i T :l la i' H) i aa i ' i ':, ]l I'ha i I il il Tsl I ja_ IX! k* [t F,! L' "'aa l,( U : fJ I :ll (i ff %J f_!l,i u"11111111111111111111 I ! il I 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
The number of students coming into the College is a leading indicator of future growtli. According to the U's Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis, the size of the College of Engineering jreshman class has grown by a factor of almost five since 2005, and has gone from 7% of the U's freshman class to 23%; nearly one in four freshmen are declaring a major in the College of Engineering. This portends a continuing need for additional space in the College of Engineering.
Cohort
ljl'l,,l Number of Freshmen entering CoE & @ Percent of U of U's Freshman Class : it )i'l
I)l',il, 511
r{lii!.1 7oA 305 261 205
-5- Since the Engineering Initiative began, the nuinber of graduates from Engineering has grown at a compound annual rate of 6%. Since 2014, the compound annual growth rate has been 8.5%. Our faculty nuinbers liave grown at a compound annual rate of 3.7oA over the time of tlie Engineering Initiative. In order to keep growing, Engineering has to have space for the ever-enlarging faculty and student body. The College has continued to renovate and make its existing spaces more efficient in order to accommodate this unprecedented growtl'i; it has spent more than $lM/yr over the last decade to address physical facilities improvements. But oppoitunities to renovate existing space are nearly exliausted; at this point, new space is required. Given the demand in Utal'i's economy for tlie high-tech workforce produced by tlie College of Engineering, the interest of students in majoring in engineering and computer science, and the need to properly liouse the 41 new faculty that the State would Iike to liave hired in order to grow our capacity to educate these students, the case for support of the Kennecott Pliase 3 project is urgent.
Tlie current Phase 3 programming plan includes 15 offices (3,026 SF to accommodate ten faculty and 25 students); ten labs of varioris sizes (a total of 5,966 SF) for instructional space for a modern undergraduate machine shop, three labs for thermal, fluid and energy systems, a mechatronics Jab, freshman design Jab, senior design lab, and undergraduate design space; and graduate student program Jab space of 2,029 SF. The design has 61% of the gross square feet assignable. The 18,089 SF Kennecott Phase 3 addition, will house new ME hires, but will also facilitate the decanting of some instructional labs from the Merrill Engineering Building, freeing these spaces to allow reassignment to other departments that have also received new funding from tlie Utah Engineering Initiative and have fast-growing programs.
Wliile the proposed Phase 3 of the Kennecott Building will only begin to address the need for space, it makes great sense to expand this building so that Mechanical Engineering can consolidate its teacliing laboratories and faculty. Furthermore, the master plan developed during the earlier phases of the renovation of Kennecott is fully developed, making this addition the quickest way to gain new, critically-needed space.
Feasibility/Planning:
As stated above, this space was originally programmed as part of the previous improvements to the Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building. That programming has been reviewed recently by the College of Engineering and ME Department. The description of space utilization is in the previous sections of this document, and the proposed floorplans are shown below. The validation of the programming and feasibility is underway.
Funding for this project has been methodically set aside to augment donor funding. The College will raise as much money as possible toward this project by naming spaces (the entire addition, a suite of laboratories, or an individual laboratory). A case statement has been developed, and is being used to present the project to potential donors. This will be one of the projects described totheEngineeringNationalAdvisoryCouncilattheFallmeetingonNovember7,2019. Atthis point in time, the College has enough funding in hand to do the project, but any donations will allow those funds to be used to improve other facilities. While market forces continue to drive up anticipated costs, the fact that the project is ready for construction documents to be developed means that it could soon go to bid with construction starting in 2020.
-6- Tlie proposed addition to the Kennecott Building will liave no significant impact on neighboring properties. With more students and faculty in the building, there will be a small impact on parking and traffic. The building has a bus stop directly adjacent (paid for in the earlier renovations) so public transportation is very convenient for the building's occupants. A beautiful bridge connects the Kennecott Building to the Engineering Campris on the east side of North Campus Drive, so students, faculty and visitors can access the building safely from the rest of campus.
Because the earlier renovation of the building anticipated this final phase, the mechanical systems were all designed in a modular fashion, so that it is straightforward to add the additional heating and cooling capacity needed to support the additional square feet of space. All utility services are sized to accommodate the expansion. IT services will be provided by the College of Engineering Computing Team, as in the rest of the building.
State System of Higher Education, Additional Statutory Required Information:
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and tlie publication "Cyberstates" (www.cyberstates.orgi, Utah has the fastest-growing tech sector in the country.
9 Fastest-Growing Tech Sectors 8 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
o Raisins o;"e','tsq"'@'@,o'%%<,,so',,.'%Qev'o';"',;5'!@%%'%oo+e,'%tg;'co,os>o(>zo@s%o,@%oaa>o
This growth is, in part, the result of visionary decisions made years ago to grow the State's capacity to educate engineers and computer scientists. Companies thrive in, and are attracted to an area where there is a well-educated workforce in disciplines critical to their success. But the
-7- growtli in Utah's tech sector has ceitainly created an insatiable appetite for more graduates from the College of Engineering. Cyberstates claims that Utah has 143,000 people employed in tecl'mology, and that from 2017 to 2018, there was a net tech job growtli of 5,914. Further, they say tliat there were 29,499 tecli occupation job postings in Utali in 2018, wliich was an increase of 11 1% over the previoris year. A more recent report (July 2019) called "Utah's Tech Economy" from the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute of tlie David Eccles School of Business says tliat the economic impact of the tecli industry in Utah represented $29.7 B in 2018, or 18% of Utah's GDP. They point out that the average compensation in the tech industry in Utah is $106,100, compared to $58,500 in other industries.
The boom in tecl'inology in Utah has led to the Wasatch Front's new moniker, Silicon Slopes, and to an organization of the same name representing and promoting technology companies in the State. In the year 2000, Utah had 1,500 high tech companies; today it has 6,700. Utah is 3rd in venture capital investment per capita, and 7'h among states in total VC investment. In 2015, three Utah companies went public with a valuation of more than $lB (Domo, InsideSales, and Pluralsight), and in 2018, Qualtrics was sold to SAP for $8B. Utah is now playing in the big leagues in technology. And there is no end in sight. More companies are relocating to Utah, and more native Utah companies are popping up along the Wasatch Range every month.
Utah's Silicon Slopes
The University of Utah produces roughly half of all of the engineering and computer science graduates in the State. Higher ed's ability provide the workforce for Silicon Slopes is very dependent upon the U's College of Engineering.
As a result of the recognized high and growing demand for engineering graduates to address the workforce shortfalls in the current and projected market for the next decade (indeed for the foreseeable fuure), the Utah Legislature has funded yet anotlier Engineering Initiative in 2019. This year's allocation to the University of Utah, including the institution's match, is a record $5.2 million. The Kennecott Phase 3 project will develop new space that can be utilized to house the growing programs in both Mechanical Engineering and other Engineering departments that will be hiring new faculty to teach and mentoring the growing engineering studentbody
The State's Technology Initiative Advisory Board (TIAB) has approved the proposed allocation of this funding in light of current and future workforce needs. Unlike some state programs, this
-8- funding has been directed at priorities set by industry leaders who serve on the TIAB. There is wide consensus at the various levels of government who oversee economic development in the State that growing orir engineering and computer science workforce is essential if the State is to continue to prosper and grow.
While many courses and programs in the College are moving to online delivery, much of the undergraduate experience necessary to give engineers a quality education can only be had in well-equiped laboratories. Students simulate engineering structures and devices, then build and test them in these laboratories using sophisticated computer-aided design software, fabrication tools, and test equipment. These laboratory projects also develop management and teamwork skills that are critical for the graduates.
The requested additional space in Kennecott will be used to support the growth in numbers and quality of College of Engineering graduates. There is tremendous demand for these graduates from the local high-tech industry. Both industry demand and freshman enrollment trends indicate that the studentbody growth will continue far into the future. As a public institution, it is our responsibility to try to meet the workforce demands in our state, which are highest in engineering and computer science. The College continues to expand its on-line education portfolio with master's degrees and certificates, but in engineering, it is impossible to teach the fundamentals well without hands-on experience in the kind of laboratories proposed for Phase 3 of the Rio Tinto Kennecott Building.
Land Bank Acquisition Requests: N/A
Photographs and Maps:
The included renderings and diagrams from the Master Plan provide an overview of the project.
Proposed Phase 3 Expansion of Kennecott (outlined in red)
-9- Rio Tinto Kennecott Mechanical Engineering Building
Mechanical Ground Floor 1 st Floor 2nd Floor Penthouse 2F offices (7): i414 GF NW lab: 1,739 1 F offices (7): 1,414 2FSoffice(1): 196 Mechanical: 953 GF SW lab: 427 1 F SW lab: 578 2F SW lab: 420 GF SE lab: 820 IF SE lab: 820 2F SE lab: 820 GF NE lab:791 1F NE lab: Z!1 2F NE lab: 791 Infill total SF: ME assignable: 3,777 ME assignable: 3,603 ME assignable: 3,641 Building: 1935 Building: ,2109 Building: 2071 Total: 5,712 Total: 5,712 Total: 5,712 18,089
Infill area
Infill area
- 10 - @GROUND FLOOR
H.,11J b i,l'l l: -" -i ; i'-.: lo
€
€ II 'T,Ct87 SF J
791 SFa e'J 0 II ui z
iaoffi6e s
820 gF 427 SF
- 11- @FIRST FLOOR
li
- 12 - SECOND FLOOR
:202 SF 202 SF
202 SF
202 SF 202 SF
202 SF 202 SF
Study
MECH 791 SF J 0 ui J o uz
z
198SF
820 SF
420 SF
- 13 - *THIRD FLOOR
, 7 :lo i"' i.i "
i
Ig ,;.. 1, i,, ME(,H -< l i z
Scoring Analysis for Building Board Request Evaluation Guide: N/A
14 - University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Non-State Funded Projects
projectName: KennecottBldgAddition
Client: University of Utah, College of Engineering
ProjectManager: Christin Robbins, PDC Cost CostSummary 9Amount PerSF Facility Cost S 6,743,780 S372.79 S357 per sq. ft. in 2019 dollars Additional Construction Cost S SO.OO Site Cost S 50.00 Total Construction Cost ", 6,743,780 S372.79 Escalated to 7/15/2020
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials S 3,500 Pre-Design/Planning S 77,438 Design S 557,782 Furnishings & Equipment S 759,900 Information Technology S 373,749 Testing & Inspection S 70,578 Contingency S 333,817 Moving/Occupancy S 90,445 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) S 10,116 UofU Project Management Fee S 310,001 User Fees S Commissioning S 77,553 Other Costs S 276,388 Total Soft Costs S 2,941,267 S162.591
Total Project Cost S 9,685,047 S535.381
Non-State Funding: S S s S S 99,685,047 Diference [o Total Project Cost
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 18,090 BaseCostDate 9/25/19 NetSquareFeet 18,089 EstimatedBidDate 7/15/20 Net/GrossRatio 100% Est.CompletionDate 7/15/21 LastModifiedDate 9/25/19 PrintDate 10/29/19 CBE Details Non-State Funded Projects
Proiect Name: Kennecott Bldg Addition University of Utah, College of Engineering Project Manager: Christin Robbins, PDC
Description Explanation Units Unit Cost Escalated Cost
FadlityCost: GSF New Facility Cost Details: InfillBullding lulyl3,2018Estimateby0klandConstruction 18,089 S 330 S 5,969,370 S 6,2:18,809 (Reduced SF from 20,880to 18,€1891 Complexityofexlstingconditions(access,traffic 1 S 125,000 S 125,000 5 130,642 control, parklng & roadway shutdowns) EscalateEstimatetoSeptember25,2019 6%9 5,969,370 S 358,162 '> 374.329 -S -G -S -S -S -S -S -S -S Subtotal-NewFacilityCosts 18,090 9 6,454532 6 6,743,780
Remodel Facility Cost Details: S -S -S -S -G -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S Subtotal - Remodel Facility Costs S - S
TOTAIFACIIITYCOST 18,090 S 6,452,532S 6,743,780
Additional Construdion Cost Details: 20%ADARequirementiifapplicable) ApplicableonlywhenremodelingoT"primaHfunction" O.OO% S 6.743,780 S - S spaces (e.g office space In an office building). Llp to 20% oT remodel budget is allocated solely to Impioving the accessible route to the primary lundion. If accessible route It adequate, the 20% allocation is not needed.
Pie-ConstructionServices O.2%ofTotalFacilityCost 0 S - 5 - '> -S -S -S TOTALADDITIONALCONSTRUCTIONCOST S - S
Site Cost Details: GeneralSiteWork Includedabove 0 S - '> - S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S -S TOTALSITECOST S - S
I TOTALCONSTRUCTIONCOST 6,452,532 S 6,743,780 I
PROJECT INFORMATION: otal NetSquare Feet: Cost Date: Bid Date: Completion Date: Modified Date: Inflation Escalation Factor Induded:
Hazardous Materials Cost Details: Pie-ConstructionSurvey I S 3,500 9 3,500 AbatementDocuments None 5 PlanandMonitorlng None S Abatement/Removal None S -S -S -S -S TOTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COST S 3,500
pre-Design/Planning: Pre-Design/Programming lfrequired,guldelineisl%ofConstructionCost 1.OO%S 67,438 FeasibilityStudy - S - S MasterPlanning - S - S Programming - S - S Study - S - S Geotechnicallnvestigation/Surveys UpdateLetterfromExistingSolls Report 1 S 10,000 S 10,000 CulruralResourceConsulting _ 5 _ S CulturalResourceMonitoiing - S - S -S -S -S -S TOTALPRE-DESIGN/PIANNINGCOST S 77,438
Pg 2 oT 4 10/29/2019 Fill out "A & E Fee Calculator' to Calculate Fee 8.83% S 557,782 I CBE Details Non-State Funded ProjeCtS
piojed Name: Kennecott Bldg Addition University of utah, College of Engineering Project Manager: Christin Robbins, PDC
Description Explanation units llnit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
-S -S -S -S Total A/E Design Fees ';, 557,782
SchematicDesign - S - S DesignDevelopment - S - S ConstructionDocuments - S - S BiddingServices - S - S ConstructionAdministration - S - S txtraServices - S - S Relmbursables - S - S 5pecialtyConsultant - S - S DonorRecognltion - S - S IntegratedBranding - S - S InteriorDeslgn - S - S ValueManagement - S - S -S -S -S -S TOTALDESIGNCOST S 557,782
purnishings & Equipment Costs: Furnishiru.s Detail New Interior Furnishings zg,ogg S 30.41 550,000 site Furnlshings iblke racks, trash containers, 1S 20,000 20,000 benches, etc.)
Total Furnishings 570,000
Eauloment Detail Equipment 6% of Escalated Construction Costs 18,089 S !1.67 S 175,000
Total Equipment 175,000
FF&E Design Costs 14,900 Owner Provided FF&E Installation TOTAL FURNISHINGS & EQUI%ENT COSTS s y59,!)00
Information Technology Costsi unlveislty IT PM Fees Fill out 'UIT PM Fee Calculator' to Calculate Fee '> 20,503 ITCabling,Swltches,DAS 18,Oa9S 14'> 253,246 AV/TLT 1 S 100,000 S 100,000 -S -9 -S -S -S -S TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST S 373,749
Testing & Inspection Costs: BuildingCodelnspection .75%ofTotalConstructlonCost 6 50,578 MaterialTesting 1 S 10,000 S 10,000 Spectallnspec(Ions 1 'p 10,000 S 10,000 -S -S -S -S -S -S TOT At TESTING & INSPECTION COSTS S 70,578 IAddlllOnalCOntlngenCV
Movlng/Occupancy Costsi Standard Movlng Costs Rough budget provided by Space Planning is 55/SF 18,089 9 5.00 9 !10,445 MovingPhone&Data _ 5 _ S -S -S -S -S TOTALMOVING/OCCuPANCYCOSTS S 90,445
User Fees: -S -S -S 10/29/201g -S -S TOTALusuFEES S CBE Details Non-State Funded Projects
Project Name: Kennecott Bldg Addition University of Utah, College of Engineering Project Manager: Chrtstin Robbins, PDC
Description Explanation Units unit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
Commissioning: CxA-SystemsCommissioning PerDFCMSchedule 6,743,780 1.OO%S 67,438 BECxA-BuildingEnvelopeCommissioning PerDFCMSchedule 6,743,780 0.15% 6 10,116 EE-EnergyEngineering PetDFCMSchedule 1 0.22%S -S -S https://dfcm.utah gov/wp-content/uploads/AE-Fee-Schedule-12-12-20l7.pdi TOTALCOMMISSIONINGCOSTS S 77,553
Other Costs: Other ltemsnotyetidentlfledinpreliminarystages 1 S 75,000 S 75,000 LltilityShutdowns O.30% S 6,743,780 S 20,231 DiggingPermits - S - S Signage&Graphics O.30% S 6,743,780 S 20.231 Standard Locks O.20% S 6,743,780 S 13.488 CardReaders 20 S 4,000 S 80,000 Security Systems / Cameras / CCTV unlverslty 1% of Total Escalated Const. Costs 1% '> 6,743,780 S 67,438 -S -S -S -S TOTALOTHERCOSTS S 276,388
Pg 4al4 iolzglzoig University of Utah
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Non-State Funded Projects
ProjectName: KennecottBldgAddition
Client: University of Utah, College of Engineering
ProjedManager: Christin Robbins, PDC Cost CostSummary SAmount PerSF Facility Cost S 6,743,780 S372.79 S357 per sq. ft. in 2019 dollars Additional Construction Cost S 90.00 Site Cost S SO.OO Total Construction Cost S 6,743,780 S372.79 Escalated to 7/15/2020
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials S 3,500 Pre-Design/Planning S 77,438 Design S 557,782 Furnishings & Equipment S 759,900 Information Technology S 373,749 Testing & Inspection S 70,578 Contingency S 333,817 Moving/Occupancy S 90,445 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) S 10,116 UofU Project Management Fee S 310,001 User Fees S Commissioning S 77,553 Other Costs S 276,388 Total Soft Costs S 2,941,267 5isz.sgl
Total Project Cost S 9,685,047 S535.381
Non-State Funding: S S S S S 59,685,Chl7 rhfference to Total Project Cost
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 18,090 BaseCostDate 9/25/19 NetSquareFeet 18,089 EstimatedBidDate 7/15/20 Net/GrossRatio 100% Est.CompletionDate 7/15/21 LastModifiedDate 9/25/19 PrintDate 11/19/19
Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utali 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801)538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: Utah State University Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab Presenter: David Cowley, Vice-President of Business and Finance, Utah State University
Recommendation I am recommending the Board hear Utah State University's request for O&M funding for the Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab.
Background The Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Building is a proposed new building on the USU Blanding campus. The building will provide space for the existing heavy equipment and trucking maintenance program as well as the new welding program. The new building will enable USU Blanding to facilitate these programs where other career and technical programs are housed. The project consists of a metal building structure, organized into 3 main structural bays, with an adjacent outdoor yard. In addition there will be a welding lab, storage, mechanical, electrical and restroom space as well as six outdoor welding stations and outdoor fenced storage. The project cost is $1.6 Million for this 4,035 GSF facility which will be funded with institutional funds.
The Utah State University is requesting an increase of $37,162 in state O&M for this facility.
JR: cn Attachments
l" g, ULo!;loLt* ' University VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS AND FINANCE
November 22, 2019
Jeff Reddoor, Director State Building Board State Office Building Room 4110 Pa Box 141160 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1160
Subject: Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab, Non-State Funded Project
DearJeff:
Utah State University desires approval to construct a Professional Career and Technical Education Lab on the USU Blanding campus. No funds are being requested for construction but USU will request operation and maintenance (O&M) funding from the Legislature in the upcoming legislative session.
The proposed 4,000 square foot metal structure is intended to accommodate the Heavy Equipment and Trucking Maintenance program and the new Welding program. Both programs are important for workforce development needs in Blanding and surrounding areas. The project estimate is Sl,600,000 and the request for O&M will be 537,162.
With this letter, we confirm to you that USU has Sl,600,000 available to cover the anticipated cost of this project.
We appreciate your support and ask that you include this item on the Building Board agenda. The project received Board of Trustees approval on September 27, 2019 and Board of Regents approval on November 15 2019.
Sincerely,
David T. Cowley Vice President for Business and Finance cc: Noelle Cockett Charles Darnell Ben Berrett Brandi Gittins Angie Hoffmann
1445 0ld Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-1445 Ph: (435) 797-1146 Fax: (435) 797-0710 www.usu.edu/vpbus
FY 2021 Capital Development Project Request & Feasibility Statement
All sections of this application request must be filled out in detail or it may be returned for completion Note: In order to facilitate brevity, instructions in italics s1xould be deleted in the submitted document.
Type of Request: € State Funded € Non-State Funded $on-State Funded with O&M Request [lLand Bank € Dedicated State Funded € Non-Dedicated State Funded
Agency/Institution: Utah State University
Project Name: Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab
Agency/Institution Priority:
Proiect Scope:
Total Project Space (Gross Square Feet) 4,035 GSF
New Space Requirement (Gross Square Feet) 4,035 GSF Remodeled Space (GSF) o Space to be Demolished (GSF) o
Types of Space - Describe the types and amounts of space proposed to meet the programmatic requirements.
The building program will include the following programs: Heavy Equipment and Trucking Maintenance Program - 2,250 GSF Welding Program-1,250 GSF Mechanical, Electrical, Shared Spaces - 535 GSF
Capital Funding:
Preliminary Cost Estimate: $1.6 M.
A professional estimate was provided with the feasibility study in 2018. In addition, DFCM has provided a CBE opinion of cost estimate. DFCM evaluated the budget using the Lehi MATC welding lab project, as well as several other ATC buildings which have been constmcted recently. They adjusted the budget to account for the size of the program, inflation, and location.
Previous State Funding $0
1 Other Sources of Funding $1.6 M. Institutional Funds
FY 2021 Requested Funding $0
Ongoing Operating Budget Funding:
Increase in State Funded O&M: $37162 l9j9fj54 of total O&M
The project should receive ongoing state funding for O&M because the functions supported within the proposed building are core academic programs.
New Program Costs: $0
New FTEs Required for O&M and Programs O&M .3 Programs 0
O&M requirements will consist primarily of utility costs, materials, custodial staff and technician supportforcraftsandtrades. Anestimated$l2,105willbenecessarytopayforutilities.20%ofthe remainder will be used for material costs, approximately $5000. The remaining dollars divided by $60,000 per person (average for salaries and benefits) for.3 FTE.
Existing Facility:
The Heavy Equipment and Trucking Maintenance program is located in a leased building in Blanding in a rundown, remote facility. The Welding Program is a new pro@am, which does not have space yet. The new buildingwill supplement current leased space off campus, which is in poor condition and remote to the main campus. It will also provide enough additional space for the new Welding Program.
Classrooms, computer lab and offices are currently located in a remodeled building south of the proposed PCTE Building site within a reasonable distance firom the proposed facility. These will continue to support the Heavy Equipment and Trucking Program as well as the new Welding Program.
Existing Space (square feet) Currently Occupied 4,085 (leased)
Proiect Executive Summary:
The Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Building is aproposed new building on the USU Blanding campus. The building will provide space for the existing Heavy Equipment and TruckingMaintenanceProgramaswellasthenewWeldingProgram. Thenewbuildingwillenable USU Blanding to relocatethe HeavyEquipment andTrucking Maintenanceprogram to theBlanding campus where other career and technical programs are housed. The Welding Program is a new program being developed by USU Blanding in response to regional demand. hi order to accommodate this new program, new space will need to be provided.
-2- The buildingwill combine these two CareerTechnical Educationprograms togetherunderoneroof. The spacerequirements are similar betweenthe two programs, makingthem a goodmatchfor shared space. Thespacewillbedesignedtobeconducivetothehandsonworkthatisrequiredfortraining in these programs, and will replicate work place environments. Future CTE programs will be accommodated on the same site as theyare developed, as defined in the USU Blanding MasterPlan.
Thenew building consist of ametal building structure, organized into 3 main structural bays, with an adjacent outdoor yard. It will provide approximately 4,035 GSF including:
* Heavy Equipment and Trucking Maintenance Program, 2,250 NSF: A drive-thru maintenance bay will include 16' x 16' overhead doors. A service pit will be located at one end for truck lubricating, maintenance, and servicing. A tire storage area will be adjacent to the service bay.
* WeldingLab,1,250NSF:ThelabwillincludelO-12prefabricatedweldingstationsaround the perimeter with large work benches in the center. One overhead door will provide access for large scale deliveries.
@ Storage / Mechanical / Electrical / Restrooms
* Outdoor welding stations - space for 6 prefabricated welding stations
* Outdoor fenced storage
The ratio of assignable (net) square feet to gross square feet is 3,500:4,035 for 87% net/gross ratio.
USU Blanding provides a critical function in providing career and technical services education for the rural population of remote San Juan County. These programs provide high quality jobs which support economic development. Without the new facility, the trucking program will be forced to continue to operate solely in a sub-standard leased space off campus. The poor quality ofthe space and the remote location does not conform to USU standards for educational space, and creates inefficiencies for students and faculty. Also, without thenew building, theWeldingprogram will not be able to be developed.
The new building will provide 3,500 NSF of teaching Jab space. Four faculty and staffmembers will support the HeavyEquipment and Truckingprogram, and two facultymembers will support thenew Welding Program. The current Heavy Equipment and Tmcking program accommodates about 15 FTE students per semester, and the new facility will accommodate up to 20 FTE students. An additionall5 students will be accornrnodated bythe Welding Programper semester. Itis anticipated thattheadditional capacitywillbefilledirnmediatelybystudentsdesimgtrainingintheseprograms. The campus growth is targeted at 3-4% per year, with Career and Technical Education being a positive force in the growth modeling.
The building and surrounding area will provide the following coursework:
Heavy Equipment and Trucking Program: Maintenance and storage bays to support the equipment needed for supportingthe HeavyEquipment and Truckingprogram. Coursework includes 7 HETR courses and 2 PCTE courses needed to train, certify, and license
-3 individuals in lieavy equipment operation and commercial truck driving.
Welding Program: Lab space for welding classes. The coursework type is still in development, but is projected to include 6 WELD courses for 23 credits needed to achieve Ai'nerican Welding Society (AWS) standards for Welding Technology certificates and licensure.
Feasibnity/Planning:
The USU Blanding Master Plan was completed in 2016. The proposed new building fits into the goals and objectives of the plan. The site is defined for the function proposed.
A feasibility study was completed for the proposed building in 2018. The study includes a detailed cost breakdown, space sumi'nary, preliminary site analysis, diagrammatic floor plans, and conceptual images. The study outlined the need for about 10,000 GSF for both the new Welding Program and replacement space for the Heavy Equipment and Trucking Program. Future phases will be built to expand these and other CTE functions as prioritized when funding becomes available.
This facility will not adversely affect the surrounding community as it is not directly competing with any local business. On the contrary, it will positively impact the surrounding community and economy by supporting high quality academic programs which bring more students and employees to the university. The construction of the building will also positively affect the construction industry for this region.
The site will be served by the existing road infrastructure provided by the City of Blanding. USU Blanding will provide parking adjacent to the building.
This project will not negatively impact the surrounding community through its placement or through disturbances in construction. It is not adjacent to any other developed land at present, therefore construction disturbance will be minimal.
The site chosen is undeveloped, and is suitable for a new building. The building will be served by Blanding utilities, and will have standalone mechanical systems.
State System of Higher Education, Additional Statutory Required Information:
USU's commitment to providing high quality academic and career and technical education facilities in Blanding responds to the needs of rural Utah and Utah State University's land-grant mission to provide educational opportunities across the state. USU's statewide campuses continue to see steady enrollment growth. This project proposed in Blanding will accommodate this growth by providing space necessary for career and technical education programs critical to rural economic development.
-4- -5- Photographs and Maps:
ARtBUlDN tA HEA1JH3
iKD fHCXBNG 4ji1 I EXBaEtJ)OEI ffl A!ffW it souSNG/DNNG 414 if OENTam&WD fi flE/E%BTDEHTER 31 PCfaaEatX3SffE IK!+ tmutaimsaas K m&YMD CULTIIRALCWER K fflBLEaD3SffE 416 II TEaJllDIHO
FMX}H MOMMENTVBVHAu
USU Blanding Master Plan Blanding PCTE building location is identified in Phase I, Site IH Courtesy Method Studio
-6- Blanding PCTE Site Plan & Test Fit Floor Plan Courtesy Bott Pantone Architects
-7-
CALCULATION OF O&M FUNDING FOR FY 2021 ST ATE-FUNDED PROJECTS
Institution: Utah State University
Project Name: Blanding PCTE Building
Rate Per Total GSF of Project Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.* Amount New Space to be Added Type of Space Classroom/Office ';' S Libraries/Student Centers S 7.91 S Service/Shops 4,035 S 9.211 , S 37,162 Labs 5 xo.zolis - Physical Education s 7.87 I S Subtotal - New Space 4,035 S 9.21 S 37,162 Spa:e to be Remodeled Type of Space Classroom/Office s Libraries/Student Centers S 7im S Service/Shops S 9.21 S Labs 6 10.24 S Physical Education 9 7.87 S Subtotal - Remodeled Space #DlV/Of S TOTAL GSF of Project 4,035 6 9.21 S 37,162 Less Current O&M for Space Remodeled/Deleted Where Applicable** S NetFundingRequest ammi S 37,162
Explanation/Description:
INSTRUCTIONS: Completion of this form is required for all state-funded projects to address questions raised by the Legislature and the O&M audit conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General.
* Authorized Building Board Rates for FY 2021
** Theratetobeusedfordeductionoftheamountapplicabletoremodeled/deletedspaceistheFY20l7 calculated actual average cost per square foot reported on Budget Form S-2 of the FY 2020 Budget Request documents.
Capital Development Projects
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Project Name: USUE Blanding PCTE Building Agency/Institution: Utah State University Project Manager: Lucas Davis
Delivery Method: Development - CMGC Cost
COStSummary $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 1,079,257 $267.47 Utility Fee Cost $ 62,367 $15.46 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ $0.00 High Performance Building $ 17,124 $4.24 Total Construction Cost $ 1,158,748 $287.17
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials $ Pre-Design/Planning $ 20,000 Design $ 104,325 Property Acquisition $ Furnishings & Equipment $ 61000 Information Technology: $ 70,000 Utah Art (1 % of Construction Budget) $ Testing & Inspection $ 20,819 Contingency 5.90% $ 68,366 Moving/Occupancy $ 15,000 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) $ 1738 Legal Services (D.05% of Construction Budget) $ 579 DFCM Management $ 14,424 User Fees $ 45,000 High Performance Building Standard (HPBS) $ 20,000 Other Costs $ Total Soft Costs $ 441,252 $109.361
TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 1,eOo,ooo $396.531
Previous Funding $ State and Agency
O!Fler Fund1ng Sources (ldemify in note) $
REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ 1,600,000
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 4,035 BaseCostDate 15-act-al9 NetSquareFeet 2,985 EstimatedBidDate 1-Nov-20 Net/GrossRatio 74% Est.CompletionDate 1-Aug-21 Last Modified Date 1 4,Aug-19 Print Date 41/26/2019
DFCM Form Date 8/09/05
C:tpe@ College
25 0ctober 2019
Board of Regents c/o Interim Commissioner David R. Woolstenhulme Two Gateway 6o South 4oo West Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1284
RE: O&M Funding for the Westpointe Campus Student Support Building
Commissionera
In accordance with policy R702, Non-State Funded Projects; SLCC is requesting O&M funding forthe recently-acquired Student Suppoit Building on the Westpointe Campus, whicli sl'iorild l':ie placed on The actioxi calendar agenda for tlie next Board of Regents n'ieeting. Tliepropeytyislocatedatzi5oW.DauntlessAve.inSaltLakeCity,andis contiguous to SLCC's current Westpointe Workforce Training & Education Center facility.
The purchase of this propertywas approved bythe SLCC Board of Trustees on April to, zoigandbytheStateBoardofRegentsonMayi7,aoig. Duringthatmeeting,itwas also acknowledged and approved that SLCC would seek ongoing O&M funds for the building in the upcoming Legislative Session. This is the first step in seeking that funding, As specified in Section 4 of the above-named policy, "the use of this building is primarily for approved academic and training purposes and associated support, and is consistent with [SLCC'sl facilities master plan requirements."
Thank you for your consideration and support of this request. Let me knowifthere is anything else you need regarding this request.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey J. West, MBA/CPA Vice President for Finance & Administration/CFO
cc: BobAskerlund
VICE PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND ADMINISTFIAT)ON, CFO p.o. Box 30808 l BVPI Salt Lake City, Utah 84130-0808 )Phone 801-957-42501 Fax 801-957-4445 I www.slcc.edu
SLCC Westpointe Campus
Student
Support
Building
- ;!
;)
Qtfuttr 16 2€119 1'l387 0 aD) Oat
D a(14 009 0181m
CALCULATION OF O&M FUNDING FOR FY 2020 STATE-FUNDED PROJECTS
Institution: Salt Lake Community College
Project Name: Westpointe (Dauntless Way) Building
Rate Per Total GSF of Project Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.* Amount New Space to be Added Type of Space Classroom/Office 17,951 S 8.96 S 160,841 Libraries/Student Centers 3,655 S 7.91 § 28,911 Service/Shops 6,855 S 9.21 S 63,135 Labs 7,426 S 10.24 S 76,042 Physical Education S 7.87 !' Subtotal - New Space 35,887 S 9.17 S 328,929 Spa:e to be Remodeled Type of Space Classroom/Office S 8.57 S Libraries/Student Centers S 7.56 S Service/Shops S 8.81 S Labs S 9.79 S Physical Education S 7.53 S Subtotal - Remodeled Space S TOTAL GSF of Project 35,887 S 9.17 S 328,929 Less Current O&M for Space Remodeled/Deleted Where Applicable** S Net Funding Request S 328,929
Explanation/Description:
INSTRUCTIONS: Completion of this form is required for all state-funded projects to address questions raised by the Legislature and the O&M audit conducted by the Office of the Legislative Auditor General.
* Authorized Building Board Rates for FY 2020
II Theratetobeusedfordeductionoftheamountapplicabletoremodeled/deletedspaceistheFY20l4 calculated actual average cost per square foot reported on Budget Form S-2 of the FY 2017 Budget Request documents.
THETaT UNIVERSITY OFUTAH Chid Fadlitfes Officer V. RandauTuqihUnlwrsaySenrkesBJdb@ 1795 E.Soudi € ampusDr,Rm 20lSaltLabeaty,ljtah 84112-9403
Mr. Jeff Reddoor, Director November 5, 2019
Utah State Building Board 3120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Subject: Project Approval for University of Utah Dumke Gymnastics Building Remodel/Addition
The University of Utah requests approval to remodel 4,374 square feet of space to enhance locker, training and support space. The project will raise the roof over the existing training area to expand the second floor by 1,717 square feet which will be shelled to preserve opportunities for growth in the future. The project also includes a 1,000 square foot addition to create a Legacy Hall entry that includes an elevator and stair. The project is described in more detail in the attached.
The proposed total project budget of S3,379,666 is summarized below and will be funded through donations. No state funds will be used for this proJect or for future O&M or improvements associated with the addition. These are funded entirely through Athletic revenues. This project is consistent with the University's master plan.
Construction. 1 ,000 SF Entry Addition S 589,466 (5589/SF) 2nd Floor Addition (1,717 SF) S 527,785 (9307/SF) Remodel 4,374 SF 51,344,514 (S307/SF) Reroof & Site Cost S 178,598 Total Construction Cost g (S372/SF) Soft Costs 7 (S104/SF) Total 7 (!9476/SF)
This project was approved by the Llniversity's Board of Trustees on September 10, 2019 and then by the Board of Regents on September 13, 2019. A funding letter from the University's Chief Financial Officeris attached along with other information. We respectfully seek your support and the opportunity to present this project to the Building Board for approval in the December 4, 2019 meeting.
Thanks, as always, for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Chief Facilities Officer
THE'tJf UNIVERSITY Cathy Anderson, CPA OFUTAH Chief Frnancial Offrcer 201 Presidents Circle, Room 201 - Salt Lake City, lJtah 84112-9007 - 801-581-5057
November 5, 2019
Mr. Jeff Reddoor, Director Utah State Building Board 3120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Subject: Funding for University of Utah Dumke Gymnastics Building Remodel/Addition
Dear Mr. Reddoor,
With this letter I confirm that the University has nonstate funds in hand to cover the S3,379,666 cost of this project. No state appropriated funding will be requested for this project. In addition, I confirm that the University of Utah has an alternative income stream derived from Athletics revenues sufficient to pay for all ongoing operation and maintenance costs and future improvements related to this addition. No state appropriated funding will be requested for this purpose.
We appreciate the Building Board's support for this project.
Sincerely,
Cathy Anderson Chief Financial Officer
TH E'tJj UN IVE RS ITY OFUTAH
Dumke Gymnastics Center Renovation & Addition
UTAH GYMNASTICS
BUILDING BOARD
DECEMBER 4, 2019 Dumke Gymnastics Center
Existing Site & Building Dumke Gymnastics Center
Project Scope
Renovation and addition
* 4,374 sq. ft. - renovation for locker, training & support
1,717 sq. ft. - new interior space created by raising the roof over the training area (shelled for future use)
* 1000 sq. ft. - 2 story addition creates new accessible entry and Legacy Hall
* Roof Replacement * Exterior upgrades & limited branding TJ Dumke Gymnastics Center
Area of Renovation/ Expansion
l'lcw Lockers
(E). Lounge Training & Support
New
Legacy
Hall
(E) Training Area (E) Training Area i (2-story open space) (2-story open..space)
ffi Existing Ground Floor Plan Proposed Ground Floor Plan v Dumke Gymnastics Center
2nd Floor Space to be "Shelled"
Proposed Second Floor Plan v Dumke Gymnastics Center
Schedule Budget
September 10, 2019: Board of Trustees Construction
September 13, 2019: Board of Regents 1,000 SF Entry Addition* !> 589,466 (5589/SF) December 4, 2019: Building Board 2nd Floor Addition** S 527,785 (S307/SF)
Dec. 2019 - May 2020 Design Remodel 4,374 SF Sl,344,514 (S307/SF) July 1, 2020: Construction Reroof & Site Cost S 178,598
May 31, 2021: Complete Total Construction Cost S2,640,363 (5372/SF) Soft Costs S 739,303 (!5104/SF) TOtal: S3,379,666 (S476/SF) THEU UNIVERSITY OFUTAH (Jild Fadlltm Officer V.RandallTurpki UnmrsitySenrkesBu&% 1795E SoudiGimpusDr,Rm201,SaltLakeaty,tj5tia4112-9403
November 5, 2019
Mr. Jeff Reddoor, Director Utah State Building Board 3120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Subject: Project Approval for University of Utah Field House Remodel for Theatre
The University of Utah requests approval to remodel 21,861 square feet of existing space to create a theatre with approximately 400 seats. This theatre is critically needed to meet the academic needs of the Department ofTheatre while also providing an intermediate sized theatre option for Pioneer Memorial Theatre. The theatre will include a thrust stage and an orchestra pit. The project includes new HVAC, upgrades to other building systems, furnishings, seating, and theatre equipment. The project is described in more detail in the attached.
The proposed total project budget of S9,394,126 is summarized below and will be funded through donations and other University funds. No state funds will be used for this project
Construction Cost S7,431,858 (5340/SF) Soft Costs J(!' 90/SF) Total 7 (6430/SF)
This project was approved by the University's Board of Trustees on September 20, 2019 and then by the Board of Regents on September 13, 2019. A funding letter from the University's Chief Financial Officer is attached along with other information. We respectfully seek your support and the opportunity to present this project to the Building Board for approval in the December 4, 2019 meeting.
Thanks, as always, for your consideration and support.
Sincerely,
Robi Chief Facilities Officer
THEu UNIVERSITY Cathy Anderson, CPA OFUTA,H Chlef Flwncial Officer 201 Presidents Circle, Room 201 - Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9007 - 801-581-5057
November 5, 2019
Mr. Jeff Reddoor, Director Utah State Building Board 3120 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Subject: Funding for University of Utah Field House Remodel for Theatre
Dear Mr. Reddoor,
With this letter I confirm that the University has nonstate funds in hand to cover the 59,394,126 cost of this project. No state appropriated funding will be requested for this project.
We appreciate the Building Board's support for this project.
Sincerely,
Cathy Anderson Chief Financial Officer
THE UNIVERSITY OFUTAH
NewTheatre at the Einar Nielsen Fieldhouse
BUILDING t30A'RD
DECEM-BER 4, 2019 Theatre at Fieldhouse
The Einar Neilsen Fieldhouse opened in 1939, and served as the venue for Utes Basketball for 30 years.
Over the last 50 years, it has served m as a fitness and recreation center, and currently houses instructional space at the west end, and a new chiller plant at the east end. Theatre at Fieldhouse
Scope of Work:
Remodel the building to Create a New 384 seat Thrust Theatre
1
r,-Jl ;,,t.
South Elevation
(E) Instructional Space Proposed Theater (E) Chiller Plant
I "'g i Akl40RUM : : :l I REHEAR!A6Tk)DO. I ff : il f i 5a. . i ffl g - g PffAND I B I
Proposed East-West Section through Building Theatre at Fieldhouse (15' & 2nd Levels)
W
l:l I l=l n//yL4fflWmni_'4'!r!li?nf'- *"Th=ii?-._m":iiiqi?-!-__miTl:4i'4__-m'lmivaizi__xffaiii___'$a-m*iTi'Jii'a'Fii!iii*m=:n x,,xx=m=m=m=m=m=ai=m=m=uim=ui=ui_m=ap,m=ui_m=ui_m=ui_u==ui=iu:uix IElll'J W /.p/ .ll=lll=lll=lll=lll=llF_m=lll:__lll=lll-lli=lll=lll=lll=lll=lll=lll=lll;lll=lli=lll==lll=lll=lll=lll=llJl=l ]-nl (/A// / / ---lllElllElllElllElllElllalElllElllEm==lllElllElllElllElllElllElll=lllElll=lllElllElllElll_ll I=rfT=i v t..r t /.:'-'i'=:n-m=m-w=in=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=:n=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=:u=m=m=m=m=m -m-m-m-i I l:l l& _#l:52:J'#-B#rq#l#rn_jni:ffm_%':i =_ufflLl"'Jff_ni'#[:ipffF' i=:-m#["'-" "-"'-i't[iffmJ_m5T5_i1:#FJ'B'q lLl=:uf=l!j-_lll-i Il=lll=lll=lqlll-11 I-lq;_111JllJ-=[ ]$__lll=Ltl=lll=!ll=Llf=Lu,=LLl-ui==iUl .;>m-ii_ EIIIB_IIEI _ll=iil=m__=NI=l Ti=m-rn-ui-m=iii-ii l=!il__lll=lL!=ll!d!b_lllrn=LLl=: 5J, ill=m=l 11EITI:I 11EIIIEII l-Ill:Ill:Ill:II i=ms-at=m=m'a_ n=m=i ll=nl=lll=lll-lll=lll=lll=lll=ll IEI ll=lll. o .Lm!late Ell!EL II=IIIEI _ ]Ell IEIII=I TlEillElllElllElllEI p7_____hE)_55_=lll=_ii I llElllElllElllElillinEHJF_ll IEIIIEI I lEil IEII ill lll=lll=l T l=l ii=i ll=lll=l_ __ I IEI IIEI IIEI ll._lll=lll-__lll=lll..l i Il=lll=m=ll Il=ln=ll l=ll IEI IIEI Il=lli u=nsm=i =, s,. EIIIEIIIEI 11ElL!ElllEE_lllEELII_EIIIEEII _ liillill IEII_lEl_ I IEII IEI_IIEII 'oil IEIII-;I t#;-=l IIEI IIEI I I =lll =ill =lll =l I l-l I IEI I IEI IEI l=lll=ll l-_l II-_rfil _ll._lll%ili$l IEII IEIIIEI_ 11ElLlEillElEiliE[_ iEll I$lli$lll=i[_ IEI opna lEi]ElOEiJ_,_l'E:. o ': ' I a ll=lll=l I l=lll=lll-lll=l I b l=l_ ll=lll-ili=__lll=ill==;lil-__ _ _ ,,,,,, I=lu-Ill'-_lil=ill: W. FI ll=l 71 =lll=lll =lli =lll =lll =l IEII I =l a=astp ______l1=lh=_lii=l1l7' I iiiiii ii4'!i:lH.- _LE_I I __ __l=ll l=lll=H_l=lll_=Ni=_lil==iil=_llJ - ('l j_' 'alllaaSt - l -- I .l" A< =aT&A l"' (_':".11 %'U+' l'-t!P_ffi'= i 'o).2 [-. l!I=!l'-_=a!Fl!ff'l!!!fFf!!!='!g!!rU!FTh!!l='!r!!!F'J '"11Gllll$-ll-llTE'flrllllilllillI .-_ "-l"'-"' lE-lll-il' 111EIIIEIIIEI 11EIIIEIIIEIIIEI llElll31lElllElll-l_llEl 11EIIIEII . IEIIIE[ .i EI ilElllEll IEIIIEI IP_ I IEI 11EllL--lllElllElllB_llElllEll_ _ _lll ' I '111ElllElllElIE II-_l 11ElllEllFlllEllFlllElllEll l=lll=lll=lll=llH_j_lJ-1 _ _ =_m=i n=m=i n=ni=i n=n"l=iii=m=iii=m_au=m=:ii=m=i ll=lll=[ l=ll 11:11 4_lllEli4J3_i.E_l 11Eilliill;111EiliEllEllE-l"="illEllJEElllEElllEll_ ,______IEII, w:l =lll =lll =lll =lll =l II=IIH_ W_I l=l II-Ill =l li=u:=m=lll=lll=ll IEIIIEEIIl=l " KElllElllElllElllEil IEIIF_I I l=l 11311EmElllElllEl 11EI I l=l I IEI I IEI I IEilla IEIIIEI El EiiiE_lll_lJlENE,_l 11EIIIEF_ JElll=ElllElilElllElli'Ell _ IElnEl__ jJEEllgj, _ _lpl%iEl)_iE_l lll=lll=lll=ill=ill=l I l=l II =lll=lll-IIF_IIIB_II =l ll=__lll=lll=l IIJll=i l=lll=l I l=lll=ll :=ll ,
JlpHip7i i i'i7!!'l=iii-i_i ll=lll=lll=m=l i=i ii=ii 1!ffl%U!#l!7J_"f'f__f!F" i=ii ig!'f#!l71'-g'i_;J_Th9:'f'{!!l(';" gg X fl r 7_:F,__llliji:iiul:4mLu;Xj_SfiL_l:,,,u_lllj:,,T,,!j_4:fi!,ui,ffiu!,I),&:ifLLl:l,,114ill!mut!W4F,ull,--4!,4iT,gmi Theatre at Fieldhouse (3rd & 4'h Levels)
II !i_.__) i f V)i',Vj '____J ! -l" [I b I OP!)iffl!l 4_ I m! i /. aq, l ! , I.ATWALKWTE I 3I / 'S / ',X"'.,f i i / ", a Th (i' u l" =l- g.. j _l I/ '("R. \ Y,__ __,! I V i'/ "%, 'i ! - ig_ uI m..-.-.-._._.._.._-- -- EAST-END OPTION
XS / '%, / emm
// X"S
EAST-END OPTION Theater at Fieldhouse
Budget: Construction Cost S7,431,858 (S340/SF) Soft Costs !51,962,268 (S 90/SF) Total Project Cost 69,394,126 (5430/SF)
Proposed Schedule:
* Feasibility Study: Oct. 2018 Feb 2019 - Board of Trustees: September 10, 2019 o Board of Regents: September 12-13, 2019 - Building Board: December 4, 2019 o Design: December 2019 July 2020 - Construction: August 2020 July 2021 Utah State Building Board
Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Like City, Utali 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267
MEMORANDUM
To: Utah State Building Board From: Jeff Reddoor Date: December 4, 2019 Subject: Utah Valley University's Advancement and Alumni Building Presenters: Frai'ik Young and Scott Cooksey
Recommendation I am recommending the Board hear Utah Valley University's request for approval of the Advancement and Alumni Building.
Background Utah Valley University would like to construct a facility for their Institutional Advancement and
Aluinni Departments which is currently being housed in several residences adjacent to campus. The proposed building will be approximately 24,000 GSF with a total building cost of $8 Million, paid by the University. The new building will be located on 800 South and west of the Nellesen Autism Building. The residences currently liousing the department will be razed as part of the project. No state O&M is being requested for this project.
This project requires Board approval.
JR: cn Attachments
LIVu
UTA H VALLEY u NIVE R SITY
V I l: I. l' i) l !i I If i ti T I II tl I I I{ A N I: r li jl i] 11 I {l I :i I If ji + I I i 11
November 11, 2019
Jeff Reddoor Director, Utah State Building Board 3120 State Office Building Capitol Hill Complex 450 North State Street Salt Lake City, LJT 84114
Director Reddoor;
I am writing to personally certify that Utah Valley University has allotted 58,000,000 dollars forthe construction of the Lltah Valley University Alumni and Advancement Buitding, The allocated funds are available for immediate expenditure.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the funding for this project, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincere
Val Peterson Vice President for Finance and Administration
)l n l) VI E S I kl Nl V I R 'i I I Y P A 14 K W A Y 11 II E it 11 I A I I U 4 l) S II R 7 (l.'l M S 1 !l ii /I 4 n [1 kl l (l ti3 11 4 2 'I I.i s a n 1 2 2 8 B 2 [17
Advancement and Alumni Building Utah Valley University Non-State Funded
For many years the Institutional Advancement and Alumni departments have officed in various locations adjacent to campus. Institutional Advancement currently resides in the Murdock home at 600 West 1200 South and two other houses along 1200 South in Orem, Utah. After several remodels and adjustments, the division has outgrown the available space.
A new Advancement and Alumni Building will provide the opportunity for alumni relations, student alumni relations, communications, major gifts, advancement, the offices of vice president and staff, and events departments to be conveniently located in the same building. The new facility provides proximity between departments and streamlines the collaboration process. As a new structure on campus, the Advancement and Alumni Building also serves as a reminder and an indication of the strength of the University and the commitment to our students" success both during and after their experience here.
?a I 1'
X il,
The proposed building in size is expected to be between 20,000 and 24,000 square feet. As we work with the Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management (DFCM) and the architect we will maximize the square footage of our building budget. The building will be located on 800 South, just west of the Nellesen Autism Building. Two old houses will be razed to make room for this building. The building will be University-funded for construction and operations and maintenance. The total building cost is expected to be S8 million.
A programming exercise has been completed, and the DFCM has provided a CBE.
Capital Development Projects
Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)
Project Name:
Agency/Institution:
Project Manager:
Delivery Method: Cost
CostSummary $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 6,210,000 $310.50 Utility Fee Cost $ 25,000 $1.25 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ 168,000 $8.40 High Performance Building $ $0.00 Total Construction Cost $ 6,403,000 $320.15
Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials $ 12,500 Pre-Design/Planning $ 54,500 Design $ 391,864 Property Acquisition $ Furnishings & Equipment $ 384,180 Information Technology: $ 192,090 Utah Art (1% of Construction Budget) $ Testing & Inspection $ 64,030 Contingency 5.00% $ 320,150 Moving/Occupancy $ 11,525 Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) $ 9,605 Legal Services (0.05% of Construction Budget) $ 3,202 DFCM Management $ 44,015 User Fees $ High Performance Building Standard (HPBS) $ 76,836 Other Costs S 32,499 Total Soft Costs $ 1,596,995 $/'1.8!)l
TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 7,999,995 $400.001
Previous Funding $ State and Agency
Other Fundtng Sources (Identify In note) $
REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ 7,999,995
Project Information GrossSquareFeet 20,000 BaseCostDate 28-Aug-19 NetSquareFeet 4 EstimatedBidDate 1-Mar-20 Net/GrossRatio 0% Est.CompletionDate 31-Dec-20 Last Modified Date 28-Aug-19 PrintDate 9/27/2CY9
DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 Capital Development ProJects CBE Details
Project Name: JVE Services and Advancement and Alumni Building Agency/Institution: uVU Project Manager: Clint Bunnell I I Description Explanation Units Unit Cost Cost Escalated Cost
Facility Cost GSF New Facility Cost Details: Offices. Support Space 18,000 S 300 S 5,400,000 !) 5,400,000 Specialty Space - Boardtoom, Kiichen. 2,000 S 405 S 810,000 S 810,000 S S S S S S S - S Subtotal - New Facilitv Costs 20,000 i s s,;iio,ooo$ 6,210.000
Remodel Facill Cost Details: I I is S IS s IS S ls s IS S I is S 81.51@(31 - Remodel Facility Costs I is $
TOTAL FACILITY COST 20,000 $ 6,210,000 $ 6,210,000
Utility Cost Details: I Water Lltility Fee 1 S 5,000 IS 5,000 S 5,000 Sewer Utility Fee 1 S 5,000 S 5,000 S 5,000 Electrlcily Utility Fee 1 S 5,000 IS 5,000 S s,ooo Storm Sewer Utility Fee I S 5,000 S 5,000 S 5,000 Connection Fees 1 S 5,000 S 5,000 S 5,000 S S TOTAL uTILITl FEE COST $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Additional Construction Cost Details: S S S S S S S S !) S S S TOTAL ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ $
Site Cost Details: Site-Landscaping 60.000 S 2 $ 120,000 S 120,000 Demo - (2) Existing Homes 4,000 S 12 $ 48,000 S 48,000 $ s $ S $ S $ S $ S $ S $ S $ s $ s $ S TOT AL SITE COST $ 168,000 $ 168,000
If N/A, change YES to NO. To supetcede 1- HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING 1 12% calculation enter amount in unit cost No $ $
TOT AL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 6,403,000 $ 6,403,000 I OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION: I I Total Net Square Feet: 1 I Base Cost Date: 812812019 Estimated Bid Date: 3tl/2020 Estimated Completion Date: 12131/2020 Last Modified Date: 8128/2019
DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details
Inflation Escalation Factor Included: 0.00', il I Location Factor Included: 0.00',=i
Hazardous Materials Cost Details: PreConstructlon Survey 1 S 5,000 5 5,000 S 5,000 S S Plan and Monitoring S S s S AbatemenURemoval 1 S 7,500 S 7,500 S 7.500 S S TOTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS COST $ 12,500 $ 12,500
Pre-Design/Planning: Planning Fund Reimbursement S S Programming Previously completed - Curfis Miner 1 S 39,500 S 39,SOD S Environmental Assessment S S Geotechnlcal InvestigatiomSurveys Geolechnical 1 S 10,000 S 10,000 Land Survey 1 S 5,000 S 5,000 TOTAL PRE-DESIGN/PLANNING COST $ 54,500
Design Costs: See Schedule - No complexities S 391,864 S S S S S Total A/E Design Fees S 391,864
Additional Printing Costs S High PerTormance Design If N/A, change YES to NO. To supetcede No $ S14'/o calculation enter amount in unit cost
Value Management Costs S S TOTAL DESIGN COST $ 391,864
Property Acquisition: S S S !l TOTAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION COST $
Furnishings & Equipment Costs: Furnlshin s Detail: 6,403,000 3% S 192,090 S S S S S s !l Total Fumishings S 192,090
E ul mentDetall: 6,403,000 3% S igz,ogo S S S S S S Total Equipment S 192,0(10
FF&E Design Costs S S TOTAL FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT COSTS I $ 384;180 I I
DFCM Form Date !1/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details
Information Technology Costs: I Information Technology 6,403,000 I 2.00% S 128,060 AV Equipment Excluding Conduit 6,403,000 I 1.OO%S 64,030 I S I S I S TOT AL INFORM ATION TECHNCILOGY COST I s 192,090
UTAHART If N/A, change YES to NO. To supetcede 1% No I $ calculation enter amount in unit cost
Testing & Inspection Costs: I Building Code Inspection 6,4(13,000 i O.80% S 51,224 I S Material Testing 6,403,000 i 0.10% S 6,403 I S Special Inspections 6,403,000 I 0.10% S 6,403 S TOTAL TESTING & iNSPECTION COSTS I $ 64,030 I
Moving/Occupance Costs: I 6,403,000 0.189 S 11,525 S S S TOTAL MOVING/OCCUPANCY COSTS $ 11,525
DFCM Management: 1 S 44,015.00 S 44,015 S S S TOTAL DFCM MANAGEMENT $ 44,015
User Fees: S S S S TOTAL USER FEES $
High Peformance Building Standard (HPBS) Systems Commissioning Cx (5-1%) 6,403,000 0.80% S 51,224 Envelope Commissioning Ait BarrierTesting i2-.3%) 6,403,000 0.20% S 12,806 Energy Engineenng Energy Engineering ( 2-.3'!/o) 6,403,000 0.20% S 12,806 3rd Party Review (Optional Qa/QC) S
TOTAL COMMISSIONING COSTS $ 76,836
Other Costs: Keying 6,403,000 0.15% S !1,605 Building Signage/ Monument Sign 6,403,000 0.25% S 16,008 Intenor Signage 6,403,000 0.10% S 6,403 Additional Contingency 1 484.00 5 484 TOTAL OTHER COSTS $ 32,499
Previous Funding: (Only show stale appropriated funding & inc ude costs coveted by )hat funding in approprie.te category.) S S TOT AL PREVIOUS FuNDING $
Other Funding Sources: (List and describe each source) S S S s TOTAL OTHER FUNDING SOURCES $
DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 State of Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management Architectural / Engineering Fee Calculator Se'l'eQt'Proje6tTypetki@rrer;iteririformation:int6hluie:shaded'cell's. Alle'lse.i'pca!6ulaitem.., '
Projed Type - Seled One
-a I @ Pmjed p7@jB(,i Name:
l 0 EngineeringPmjat Company: DFCM Project Manager:
Architectural Professional Fee Calculation Architectural Project Complexity ConstructionBudget: l $6,403,000 Architectural Classification - B % Less than Average Complexity Renovation % and Amount of Budget: i .G.O'!/o,ll ._l 1. Complex Parking Structures, 2. Liquor Stores, Arch. Project Complexity Classification: [H- I ARcH"eWA" o Iclassification"eWA"ENG ' 3. Office Buildings, 4. Shop & Maintenance Facility, Arch. Professional Fee % and Amount: B.12% 404 5. Student Housing, Plus Renovation Fee % and Amount: 6. Visitor Centers
Architectural Professiia-nal Fee: 1,
Additional Fees due to Extraordinary Complexity of Scope and/or Consultant(s)
I View/Complete a I View/Complete
Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Scope: Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Consutant(s): ' Added Arch Fees due to Extraordinary Coriipl'exity: (7J'.'-"" '.::]
TOTAL Architectural Professional Fee (APF) W Contingency Budget
New O.OO%
Remodel
developments
Project Scope New Remodel Constructi constructi
Constuction Cost on on
6.50% 9.50%
250,001 6.40% 9.25%
500,001 6.30% 9.00% 750,001 6.20% 8.75%
1,000,001 6.10% 8.50%
1,250,001 6.00% 8.40%
1,500,001 5.95% 8.30% 1 ,750,001 5.90% 8.20%
2,000,001 5.85% 8.10% 2,250,001 5.80% 8.00%
2,500,001 5.75% 7.90% 2,750,001 5.70% 7.80%
3,000,001 5.65% 7.70%
3,250,001 5.60% 7.60%
3,500,001 5.55% 7.50% 3,750,001 5.50% 7.40% 4,000,001 5.45% 7.30% 4,250,001 5.40% 7.20%
4,500,001 5.35% 7.10%
4,750,001 5.30% 7.00%
5,000,001 5.25% 6.95% 5,250,001 5.20% 6.90%
5,500,001 5.15% 6.85%
5,750,001 5.10% 6.80% 6,000,001 5.05% 6.75%
6,250,001 5.00% 6.70%
6,500,001 4.95% 6.65% 6,750,001 4.90% 6.60% 7,000,001 4.85% 6.55% 7,250,001 4.80% 6.50%
7,500,001 4.75% 6.45% 7,750,001 4.70% 6.40% 8,000,001 4.65% 6.35% 8,250,001 4.60% 6.30% 8,500,001 4.60% 6.25% 8,750,001 4.55% 6.20% 9,000,001 4.55% 6.15% 9,250,001 4.55% 6.10% 9,500,001 4.50% 6.05% 9,750,001 4.50% 6.00% 10 ,000,001 4.50% 6.00%